tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29750966176899570922018-07-22T09:20:50.470-07:00Reports from UndergroundAn independent, open-source information and news outlet - worldview &amp; geopolitical analysis.Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-61711755098062371082018-06-12T10:10:00.000-07:002018-06-12T10:10:03.283-07:00Venezuela's Elections Were Not Free or Fair – They Were Undermined by the US<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1e1f20; font-family: &quot;Guardian Egyptian Web&quot;, Georgia, serif; letter-spacing: 0.18px;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">The Western press&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/americas/100000005908945/how-to-win-an-election-in-venezuela-control-the-food.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FVenezuela&amp;action=click&amp;contentCollection=world&amp;region=stream&amp;module=stream_unit&amp;version=latest&amp;contentPlacement=3&amp;pgtype=collection" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2f477c; transition: all 0.25s ease-in-out; word-break: break-word; word-wrap: break-word;">did its utmost</a>&nbsp;to portray the recent elections in Venezuela as fraudulent. There were legitimate allegations raised, such as how Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro offered recipients of state benefits a “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-irregularities/poor-venezuelans-crowd-pro-maduro-stations-in-hope-of-vote-prize-idUSKCN1IL0TA" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2f477c; transition: all 0.25s ease-in-out; word-break: break-word; word-wrap: break-word;">prize</a>” if they came out to vote. Therefore, an increasingly reluctant public would be compelled to vote for him to receive much-needed food and supplies.</span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1e1f20; font-family: &quot;Guardian Egyptian Web&quot;, Georgia, serif; letter-spacing: 0.18px; margin-top: 1.5em;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">But in reality this is only a minor example of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-mexico-tortilla-war-20180228-story.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2f477c; transition: all 0.25s ease-in-out; word-break: break-word; word-wrap: break-word;">a common practice</a>&nbsp;employed&nbsp;<a href="https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7g18v9sx" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2f477c; transition: all 0.25s ease-in-out; word-break: break-word; word-wrap: break-word;">throughout the region</a>&nbsp;and surely prevalent in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-cash-and-coffins-how-colombias-clans-win-elections-1520605800" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2f477c; transition: all 0.25s ease-in-out; word-break: break-word; word-wrap: break-word;">US-backed states</a>. It also confuses&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-chavismo/loyal-to-my-revolution-despite-venezuela-woes-maduro-has-diehard-fans-idUSKCN1IJ26M" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2f477c; transition: all 0.25s ease-in-out; word-break: break-word; word-wrap: break-word;">the loyal support</a>&nbsp;Maduro has amongst the poor as mere clientelism, disregarding the much more substantial impact of how the government&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/05/venezuela-support-nicolas-maduro-170528160033611.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2f477c; transition: all 0.25s ease-in-out; word-break: break-word; word-wrap: break-word;">looks after their interests</a>&nbsp;&amp; wellbeing. Despite being most harmed by the economic downturn, the poorer sectors are those most supportive of the government; not exactly what you’d call clientelism.</span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1e1f20; font-family: &quot;Guardian Egyptian Web&quot;, Georgia, serif; letter-spacing: 0.18px; margin-top: 1.5em;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">However, what is often not discussed is the much more substantial ways in which the elections were undermined—by the United States.<br /><br /><i><a href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/13870">Continue reading...</a></i></span></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-67041690422851502872018-06-10T10:43:00.003-07:002018-06-10T10:43:44.675-07:00Trump's Assault Against the Working Class; June 4-10<br /><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">Last week, Trump signed a “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-approves-giving-terminally-ill-quicker-access-to-experimental-drugs-1527024798?mod=searchresults&amp;page=1&amp;pos=1&amp;mod=article_inline">right to try</a>” bill that allows terminally ill patients to try experimental drugs that are not approved by the FDA. This is a major boost to Big Pharma companies. They now have even greater leeway to push potentially harmful drugs onto patients.</div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">However, it is no consolation that the FDA chief this week </span><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-chief-expects-agency-to-play-role-in-overseeing-requests-for-unproven-drugs-1528050627"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">said that</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">, despite the bill, the agency will still make decisions on whether patients receive the drugs. Even before the bill, the FDA had approved around 99% of all such requests. The FDA, like all governmental agencies, mainly operates in the interests of the major corporations and their profit incentives. The Trump administration is only making their control even more blatant.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">The conservative business newspaper the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wall Street Journal</i> </span><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/social-security-expected-to-dip-into-its-reserves-this-year-1528223245"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">reported</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"> that Social Security will have to dip into its $3 trillion trust fund this year since its costs exceeded its income, the first time it has done so since 1982. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">It’s important to keep in mind what the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">WSJ</i>says are the reasons are for this years’ costliness: “The tax cuts signed into law last year have slightly lowered Medicare and Social Security’s projected revenue over the next few years,” while revenue has also been reduced due to Trump’s “decision to </span><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-ends-daca-program-for-immigrants-1504624167?mod=article_inline&amp;mod=article_inline"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">end a program</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"> [DACA] offering young undocumented immigrants reprieve from deportation while allowing them to work.” At the same time “The nation’s aging population is boosting the costs of Social Security and Medicare,” a problem that could be remedied through immigration. “Slower growth in the economy” is also noted, something that could be aided by a public-funded jobs and infrastructure-rebuilding program, if public fund weren’t already going to wasteful tax cuts that </span><a href="http://undergroundreports.blogspot.com/2018/05/trumps-assault-against-working-class.html"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">have not</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"> increased growth.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">Trump’s effort to revitalize the profits of the coal company owners who funded his campaign (as </span><a href="http://undergroundreports.blogspot.com/2018/06/trumps-assault-against-working-class.html"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">reported last week</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">), would, if successful, “cost ratepayers [i.e., the population] a fortune” since the cost of coal energy is becoming much more expensive (“more expensive than any other power source”) than cheaper, safer renewables, </span><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-costly-deadly-obsession-with-coal-1528282800"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">writes</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"> Greg Ip this week. This cost is even greater when you add in the costs imposed upon the environment though climate change. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">Furthermore, burning coal emits harmful soot emissions that directly kills people, both in terms of the coal factory workers (“most tragically” harming “the coal miners [Trump] seeks to help”—which goes to show these measures are meant to help company owners, not workers) and by reducing the life expectancy of households that use subsidized coal. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">However, Trump </span><a href="https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/research-papers/industrial-structure-and-party-competition-in-an-age-of-hunger-games"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">needs to secure campaign contributions</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">from the coal companies to help fund his reelection, and so the efforts continue.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">Obamacare was a failure on many levels (it did not, and could not, reduce medical costs), but the reason it is attacked is mainly because of its beneficial measures. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">One of its good features was that it charged taxes on the exorbitantly wealthy and used that money to give healthcare to poor people who couldn’t afford it. This tax is the main reason why the law receives is so much hatred within establishment politics. It is also despised by insurance companies because it restricts their ability to do things like denying coverage and charging higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions. Now, Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department </span><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-wont-defend-affordable-care-act-in-lawsuit-brought-by-states-1528419363"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">are asking a federal court</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">to strike down these restrictions, including “the bans on insurers denying coverage and charging higher rates to people with pre-existing health conditions” and the limits “on how much insurers can charge people based on gender and age.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">This is just the latest salvo in Trump’s </span><a href="https://www.thebalance.com/how-could-trump-change-health-care-in-america-4111422"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">concerted effort</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">to destroy Obamacare. He is working in service of rich investors and the insurance companies.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">The reason the US healthcare system costs twice as much as other industrial nations while having some of the worst outcomes is because of the privatized system; high costs are charged to increase profits, while companies try to skirt providing as much care as possible to reduce costs. This could all be remedied by switching to the type of less-costly, more efficient national healthcare systems that almost all other Western nations employ, but the insurers won’t allow it. Trump’s efforts attack Obamacare in the wrong direction and exacerbate the problem. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">There is also a human cost. Maintaining the privatized system means “maintaining” a situation that results in the unnecessary deaths of </span><a href="https://www.thebalance.com/how-could-trump-change-health-care-in-america-4111422"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">45,000 people each year</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">, who die due to lack of preventative care resulting from lack of health coverage. The Justice Department’s efforts to unwind protections for people with existing medical conditions will only exacerbate this.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">The Trump administration is continuing its </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/21/opinion/lobbyists-washington-trump.html"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">signature policy</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">of placing industry officials and lobbyists into government positions designed to regulate industry. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">A former banker, Joseph Otting, </span><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-bank-regulator-flips-obamas-script-1528450206"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">now heads</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"> the Comptroller of the Currency office, which oversees banks such as Bank of America and U.S. Bancorp, which are “two of his former employers.” <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">Mr. Otting’s initial efforts have been dedicated to rolling back “requirements for banks to have anti-money laundering and community-development programs”—for the record, big banks are the main lifeline of the illegal drug industry, because </span><a href="http://washingtonsblog.com/2014/01/u-s-banks-launder-hundreds-billions-illegal-drug-cartel-money-refuse-provide-services-legal-marijuana.html"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">they launder</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"> its profits—and toward encouraging banks to expand business into things like providing more “loans to companies deep in dept.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">As I </span><a href="http://undergroundreports.blogspot.com/2018/05/trumps-assault-against-working-class.html"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">reported before</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">, the EPA recently was embroiled in a scandal after trying to conceal a federal study showing that toxic chemicals had contaminated significant portions of the country’s water supply. I noted that the intimate connections between the EPA and the chemical industry are likely major factors behind this. Now, after much lobbying from the chemical industry, the EPA has decided that it </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/07/us/politics/epa-toxic-chemicals.html"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">will only review</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">the effects of harmful chemicals that result from “direct contact with a chemical” and will exclude “any potential exposure caused by the substances’ presence in the air.” <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">NYT </i>notes “the approach means that the improper disposal of chemicals – leading to the contamination of drinking water, for instance – will often not be a factor in deciding whether to restrict or ban them.” The agency “will not focus on exposures that occur from traces of the chemical found in drinking water in 44 states as a result of improper disposal over decades”—in essence, allowing the chemical industry free reign to poison the environment, leading to illness and death, all in search of higher profits.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">Needless to say, the Trump administration is working diligently to increase the major problems afflicting the country. This point was captured quite beautifully in a recently released </span><a href="http://undocs.org/A/HRC/38/33/ADD.1"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">report</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"> by a Special UN Rapporteur who just completed a mission surveying poverty and inequality in America. It provides a scathing critique of US policy: <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">The US is “a land of stark contrast” where “the immense wealth of the few” is juxtaposed with “the squalor and deprivation in which vast numbers of Americans exist.” <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">For “almost five decades the overall policy response has been neglectful at best,” but the current administration’s efforts “seem deliberately designed to remove basic protections from the poorest, punish those who are not in employment and make even basic health care into a privilege to be earned rather than a right of citizenship." The tax cuts “overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and worsened inequality,” and simply follow a general template that will only “worsen this situation” even further. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">Download the full report </span><a href="http://undocs.org/A/HRC/38/33/ADD.1"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">here</span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk516397850;">. I highly recommend reading the entire thing.</span></div><br />Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-73436379186788995332018-06-03T09:51:00.000-07:002018-06-03T10:14:16.970-07:00Trump's Assault Against the Working Class; May 28-June 3<br /><div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst"></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">This week, Scott Pruitt, the head of the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who also has extensive ties with fossil fuel companies (as reported <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="http://undergroundreports.blogspot.com/2018/05/trumps-assault-against-working-class.html">last week</a></span>), is <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/us/scott-pruitt-coal-joseph-craft.html">further revealed</a></span> by the<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> New York Times</i>to be in bed with even more billionaire coal barons than previously thought.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">NYT</i>piece runs-through some of the ways Pruitt has been working to undermine and neuter the agency he is charged with running. It notes how the EPA has repealed (already marginal and insufficient) Obama-era laws aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, further freeing up coal companies to harm the environment, including by making it easier for them to dump toxic metals into rivers.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The EPA has also <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/climate/epa-car-pollution-rollback.html">now completed</a></span> one of the final steps before it can impose a weakening of rules designed to cut pollution from vehicle tailpipes, the next salvo in its assault against the public good in order to make life better for the exorbitantly wealthy. It’s important to understand that car manufacturers already get around these rules by rigging their vehicles with technology that tricks emissions testers. This is done on a <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/volkswagen-probe-in-germany-extended-to-chairman-1478429066">consistent basis</a></span>, evidenced by <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a29293/vehicle-emissions-testing-scandal-cheating/">the frequency</a></span> with which they get caught doing so. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Essentially, companies factor in the slap-on-the-wrist fines they receive as penalties within their cost-benefit analysis, and—given the weak laws and enforcement—they rightly judge it is more profitable to continue the practice and pay the fine if they get caught. Thus, the EPA will soon alleviate that small annoyance and manufacturers will be free to poison the air with even more impunity. These kinds of emissions, by the way, <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/15/diesel-emissions-test-scandal-causes-38000-early-deaths-year-study">lead directly</a></span> to <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829">disease and death</a></span>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>On a similar note, Trump’s Energy Department <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/energy-department-prepares-new-plan-to-prop-up-nuclear-coal-fired-power-plants-1527882928">is working on</a></span> a draft plan that would force energy-grid operators to purchase energy from nuclear and coal plants, in an effort to bail-out these failing industries. This is what is called “conservatism.” But what Trump is really doing here is <span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">paying back the corporate owners </span><a href="https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/Ferg-Jorg-Chen-INET-Working-Paper-Industrial-Structure-and-Party-Competition-in-an-Age-of-Hunger-Games-8-Jan-2018.pdf">who funded his campaign</a></span>. At the same time, he is accelerating the destruction of the environment through climate change. This is even more egregious given that these industries are already dying off due to the shift toward renewables, unlike the oil companies, who won’t go down without a fight. The obvious answer would be to just let them go.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">As <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="http://undergroundreports.blogspot.com/2018/05/trumps-assault-against-working-class.html">predicted</a></span>last week, the momentum of the deregulation drive is only just getting started.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The Fed is now seeking to <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-floats-changes-to-volcker-rule-on-big-bank-trading-restrictions-1527705603">roll back</a></span> a rule designed to curtail the kind of risky financial derivatives trading that led directly to the ’08 financial crisis, known as the Volcker rule. The proposed change to the rule would restrict all banks, including the largest ones, from further regulatory oversight of their high-risk derivatives transactions. The change would give the banks <a href="https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/06/01/bank-j01.html">further leeway</a>to use FDIC (public) insured deposits to make risky speculative bets in hopes of receiving quick super-profits. The point being, if the bets go sour, the taxpayer is on the hook.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Though the Fed is not a federal agency and is instead representative of the financial elite, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wall Street Journal</i> <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-floats-changes-to-volcker-rule-on-big-bank-trading-restrictions-1527705603">notes</a>that the proposal “is part of a broader regulatory rollback that includes a recently enacted law easing rules on small banks and less aggressive leadership at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”, which was <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="http://undergroundreports.blogspot.com/2018/05/trumps-assault-against-working-class.html">covered here</a></span> last week. The Trump administration, which in many ways represents the interests of the private equity industry which <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/research-papers/industrial-structure-and-party-competition-in-an-age-of-hunger-games">lavishly funded</a></span> Trump’s campaign, has no doubt been pushing for this kind of deregulation from the Fed.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Four other regulatory institutions must approve the proposed changes before they come into effect, and there will be a 60-day period for public comments before the rule could be implemented.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">As the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">World Socialist Web Site </i><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/06/01/bank-j01.html">notes</a></span>, although Big Finance routinely condemns regulatory oversight laws like the Volcker rule, in reality “bank profits soared to a record $56 billion during the first quarter of 2018.” As noted <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="http://undergroundreports.blogspot.com/2018/05/trumps-assault-against-working-class.html">before</a></span>, Trump has already lavishly showered financial investors (who had already been benefitting from rising profits) with even more wealth with the tax cut, which has been used mainly for stock buybacks and to pay dividends to investors.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">This, as the worlds richest <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42745853">1% snagged 82% of all of the wealth</a></span> generated last year, and while the US “has <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="http://undocs.org/A/HRC/38/33/ADD.1%20#un">the highest rate of income inequality</a></span> among Western countries” and “one of the highest poverty and inequality levels among the OECD countries.” Thus, the US represents a “land of stark contrast” where an <a href="https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/The-American-Dual-Economy-Race-Globalization-and-the-Politics-of-Exclusion.pdf">increasingly shrinking</a> number of elites live in luxury while “40 million live in poverty, 18.5 million in extreme poverty, and 5.3 million live in Third World conditions of absolute poverty,” as reported by the special UN Rapporteur, Philip Alston, who recently completed his <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="http://undocs.org/A/HRC/38/33/ADD.1%20#un">official report</a></span> on poverty in the US.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">As predicted last week, these and other deregulatory measures will lead directly to another economic meltdown. A question of “when”, not “if.” And after all, there is nothing to lose in the eyes of the financial elite. They can simply rely on their Too Big To Fail government insurance policy when everything collapses. The last time that happened they survived unscathed, got rewarded, and now are reaping record-setting profits. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Those who will suffer, as always, will be the working class and the poor; those who are marginalized and disenfranchised both by a tyrannical and rapacious economic system, as well as the decisions of political leaders, better known as—for accuracy’s sake—the in-office representatives of <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B">the corporate elite</a></span>, who, every four years, are charged with managing the economy in service of the masters. It is no surprise then, that they would do so within their interests.<o:p></o:p></div><br /><br />Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-41063033570674932672018-06-01T10:00:00.000-07:002018-06-01T10:00:35.812-07:00Trump moves to protect ISIS, al-Qaeda enclave in Syria<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--pullquote" id="a206" name="a206" style="--baseline-multiplier: 0.17; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84); font-family: medium-content-serif-font, Georgia, Cambria, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, Times, serif; letter-spacing: -0.003em; line-height: 1.58; margin-top: 54px;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">Syria is&nbsp;<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://ejmagnier.com/2018/05/27/the-us-will-not-allow-the-elimination-of-al-qaeda-and-isis-in-southern-syria-the-solution-syrian-resistance/" href="https://ejmagnier.com/2018/05/27/the-us-will-not-allow-the-elimination-of-al-qaeda-and-isis-in-southern-syria-the-solution-syrian-resistance/" rel="nofollow noopener" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54); background-image: linear-gradient(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.68) 50%, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) 50%); background-position: 0px 1.07em; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-size: 2px 0.1em; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">preparing an offensive</a>&nbsp;to regain control of the southwest of the country near the Daraa and Quneitra regions. The area&nbsp;<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/map-russia-and-iran-southwest-syria" href="http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/map-russia-and-iran-southwest-syria" rel="nofollow noopener" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54); background-image: linear-gradient(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.68) 50%, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) 50%); background-position: 0px 1.07em; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-size: 2px 0.1em; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">is occupied</a>&nbsp;by al-Qaeda and other insurgent groups associated with them, and a substantial portion is controlled by ISIS. But the US says it is opposed to the Syrian action because it would violate the de-escalation agreement made between the US, Jordan, and Russia. The administration&nbsp;<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/05/282540.htm" href="https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/05/282540.htm" rel="nofollow noopener" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54); background-image: linear-gradient(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.68) 50%, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) 50%); background-position: 0px 1.07em; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-size: 2px 0.1em; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">has warned</a>&nbsp;that it will take “firm and appropriate measures” if the operation is carried out — effectively putting the US squarely on the side of ISIS and al-Qaeda.</span></div><div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p" id="dd55" name="dd55" style="--baseline-multiplier: 0.17; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84); font-family: medium-content-serif-font, Georgia, Cambria, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, Times, serif; letter-spacing: -0.003em; line-height: 1.58; margin-top: 29px;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">Negotiations&nbsp;<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://syriadirect.org/news/rebels-fire-on-mobilizing-government-forces-in-daraa-amidst-international-negotiations-over-the-fate-of-southern-syria/#.Ww7MVHfYBzk.twitter" href="http://syriadirect.org/news/rebels-fire-on-mobilizing-government-forces-in-daraa-amidst-international-negotiations-over-the-fate-of-southern-syria/#.Ww7MVHfYBzk.twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54); background-image: linear-gradient(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.68) 50%, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) 50%); background-position: 0px 1.07em; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-size: 2px 0.1em; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">are now underway</a>&nbsp;to determine the fate of the region, with Israeli media reporting that a possible deal could include a Russian agreement to prevent the involvement of Iran and Hezbollah from any operations in return for the Israeli agreement to refrain from intervening against Syrian government attempts to take area.</span></div><div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p" id="a995" name="a995" style="--baseline-multiplier: 0.17; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84); font-family: medium-content-serif-font, Georgia, Cambria, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, Times, serif; letter-spacing: -0.003em; line-height: 1.58; margin-top: 29px;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">However, the US warning makes clear that the administration regards the presence of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and associated forces as preferable to the Syrian state, and that it would like to maintain these in the area to prevent a Syrian advance. This is conducive with&nbsp;<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.joshualandis.com/blog/us-policy-toward-the-levant-kurds-and-turkey-by-joshua-landis/" href="https://www.joshualandis.com/blog/us-policy-toward-the-levant-kurds-and-turkey-by-joshua-landis/" rel="nofollow noopener" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54); background-image: linear-gradient(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.68) 50%, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) 50%); background-position: 0px 1.07em; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-size: 2px 0.1em; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">the overarching goal</a>&nbsp;of keeping Syria&nbsp;<a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://steemit.com/syria/@syrianaanalysis/the-planned-smashing-of-syria" href="https://steemit.com/syria/@syrianaanalysis/the-planned-smashing-of-syria" rel="nofollow noopener" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54); background-image: linear-gradient(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.68) 50%, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) 50%); background-position: 0px 1.07em; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-size: 2px 0.1em; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">weak and divided</a>, of attempting to punish Russia and its allies for defeating the US-backed opposition by turning the Syrian victory into a liability.<br /><br /><i><a href="https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/trump-moves-to-protect-isis-al-qaeda-enclave-in-syria-a90fd4427bd">Continue Reading...</a></i></span></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-18496249608587361752018-05-27T09:48:00.004-07:002018-05-27T19:19:13.739-07:00Trump's Assault Against the Working Class; May 21-27<br /><div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">Ever since Trump’s election, he has presided over a dedicated assault against the working class.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Despite his populist rhetoric, it was not surprising that a billionaire capitalist would side with the interests of business owners while eroding the ability of labor to interfere with their ability to amass profits. The surprising thing has been how much these efforts have flown under-the-radar. While the $1.5 trillion tax cut is correctly seen as a handout to the rich, there has also been a constant stream of other actions aimed at enriching the wealthy at the populations expense.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Focus, however, has been diverted to irrelevancies like scandals and Trump’s most recent exploit. So, I decided to give a brief rundown of the administrations recent efforts, sticking to just the past week.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><o:p>--</o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><o:p><br /></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">While the tax cut was packaged as a way to inject a windfall of private investment into the economy, and thereby create jobs and increase wages, it became apparent that this was just a narrative used to justify a massive government welfare payment to the wealthy.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In a <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/20/investing/stocks-week-ahead-buybacks-tax-cuts/index.html">CNN report</a> this week, “Tax cut sparks record-setting $178 billion buyback boom,” the journalists describe how “corporate America is throwing a record-setting party for shareholders” by “showering Wall Street with at least $178 billion of stock buybacks during the first three months of 2018.” In the past 12 months, this has resulted in payouts to shareholders that “could top $1 trillion for the first time ever.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">For context, around <a href="http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/">84% of all stocks are owned by the top 10%</a>, while <a href="http://www.marineconomicconsulting.com/w20733.pdf">the richest 1% own nearly 40%</a>. A party indeed for the sectors of already exorbitant wealth and privilege, who are now “raking in monster profits”, in addition to the profits that were already accelerating before the tax cut. And, <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/18/investing/big-banks-earnings-record-profits/index.html?iid=EL">according to CNN</a>, “they can thank President Trump for their success.” <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In contrast, the promised job-creating investment <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/43884-are-the-trump-tax-cuts-working-and-does-anyone-care">has yet</a> <a href="http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/there-is-no-contradiction-between-weak-capital-goods-orders-and-investment-growth-in-first-quarter">to materialize</a>, which is not surprising, since there has never been <a href="https://twitter.com/DeanBaker13/status/903723781373521921">any data</a>to suggest that it would.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><o:p><br /></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">After giving a windfall of taxpayer funds away to investors, Trump moved to further disenfranchise the black working class—already the demographic most disenfranchised and harmed by our economic system—by making it <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/hud-drops-obama-era-tool-aimed-at-enforcing-fair-housing-law-1526691328">harder</a>for government agencies to enforce fair housing policies, which are aimed at addressing discriminatory housing practices.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The barely-disguised racism underlying this move was evident in the argument that was used to justify it: the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wall Street Journal</i> reports that “Critics of the Obama administration’s housing policies said the tool was intended to force communities to integrate against their will and was cumbersome.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><o:p><br /></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">One of the major facets of the Trump presidency has been to further blur the already blurry line between corporate representatives and government officials. For example, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency chief, Scott Pruitt, is a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html">climate denier</a> with <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-show-epa-chief-scott-pruitt-has-close-ties-to-fossil-fuel-industry/">intimate relations</a> with corporations that profit from burning fossil fuels. He is also the man appointed to the task of protecting our environment. It is not hard to see how this will turn out, especially within a system where business interests <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B">already determine policy</a>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">This week, Pruitt headed off a <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-vows-that-clean-drinking-water-is-national-priority-1527012180">public relations stunt</a> meant to provide damage control to <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/14/emails-white-house-interfered-with-science-study-536950">a story</a> exposed by Politico. Documents proved that the EPA was blocking the publication of a federal study which revealed a nation-wide water-contamination crisis. Certain chemicals, found in products like Teflon and foam, have been seeping into the water supply and endangering civilians.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The deputy assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, the body that is supposed to protect us from harmful chemicals, went from working at the EPA under Obama to working at the American Chemistry Council, a trade association for US chemical companies, before then coming back to the EPA; government and private office are a revolving door.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">It is therefore not surprising that representatives of the chemical industry would try to hide information showing that its chemicals are poisoning Americans.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><o:p><br /></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">On a similar note, it is widely expected that Trump will sign a “<a href="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/389380-trump-to-sign-right-to-try-bill-next-week">right to try</a>” bill next week, which recently cleared Congress. It allows terminally ill patients to access experimental drugs not yet approved by the FDA. However, nearly all of the patients who ask to try experimental medication get approval to do so already. The bill is simply a way for Big Pharma to bypass FDA regulations and push unsafe and unproven medications onto patients; giving people on the cusp of death false hopes of remedy, while increasing bottom lines.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><o:p><br /></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Trump also <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-signs-banking-bill-adding-to-regulators-to-do-list-1527182525">just signed</a> a bill to deregulate the financial industry and roll back measures aimed at preventing another financial crisis. The Obama-era Dodd Frank regulations were exceptionally weak and did not adequately protect the economy. Yet the financial class refuses to even entertain minor curbs to their ability to accumulate wealth, no matter how harmful it is to the world.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The bill exempts <a href="https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/23/bank-m23.html">a majority of financial firms</a> from stronger regulatory oversight, and will be followed up by further measures to erase what little protections still exist.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">It is important to understand that in the period after the New Deal when there were strict regulations there were no major financial crisis. Ever since the deregulation drive of the ’70s took off we have experienced intermittent and expanding crisis’, the last of which nearly brought down the global economy, and from which we have yet to recover. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Those who will eventually pay the costs of these measures, as happened after the last crash, will be working class, the poor, and the disenfranchised. The banks, on the other hand, don’t have to worry because they have a “Too Big to Fail” public insurance plan, paid by you, the taxpayer.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><o:p><br /></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In closing, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-issues-orders-making-it-easier-to-fire-federal-workers-1527284794">this headline</a> from the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wall Street Journal</i>says all that is needed to be said: “Trump Issues Orders Making It Easier to Fire Federal Workers.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The executive orders further diminish the already marginal and decreasing leverage of workers over their employers. While making it easier to fire workers considered “poor performers”, the White House says it could save taxpayers more than $100 million a year. Of course, it is fine to charge the taxpayer $1.5 trillion over 10 years to pay for record corporate profits, but when it comes to public sectors jobs, that’s where we have to tighten the belt. It is unlikely this will be mentioned the next time Trump promises to “bring back our jobs.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The orders also limit the power of public-sector unions, the last holdout of worker representation after years of assaults have reduced union participation to a shadow of its former self. It limits the amount of time employees can spend on union activities, while cutting union funding and also charging unions for rent space in federal buildings. The order <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-makes-easier-fire-federal-workers-cuts-union/story?id=55446526">will also</a> “halt payments to unions specifically related to their time lobbying Congress,” the intent to decrease the influence of workers being readily apparent.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Given the anti-labor corporate agenda briefly outlined in the preceding examples, it is obvious that this move is just another example of the Trump agenda of further increasing the totalitarian nature of capitalism. Whereby owners and managers own the profits and exercise tyrannical control over decision making, while the workforce is subordinated to wage-slavery and order-taking from the masters, without there being even a pretense of a social contract or respect for worker rights.<o:p></o:p></div><br />Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-50451030349043537482018-05-25T10:16:00.000-07:002018-05-31T13:10:37.686-07:00US Scuttled the Trump-Kim Negotiations, Not North Korea<br /><div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">President Trump has <a href="https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/999647318268932096?s=17">cancelled</a>the Singapore summit with North Korean leader Kim Jung-Un. He cited North Korea’s “hostility” as the reason, while using language that <a href="https://twitter.com/duyeonkim/status/999654798835273728?s=17">leaves open room</a> for future reconciliation. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">North Korea then sent back a <a href="https://twitter.com/JChengWSJ/status/999824531584827392?s=17">respectful letter</a>, which Trump <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/999989124873490433?s=17">described</a>as “warm and productive.” I expect the situation to continue improving, as both sides seem to want negotiations, despite the malign influence of <a href="http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/05/how-john-bolton-sabotaged-the-north-korea-summit-.html#more">spoilers</a>like National Security Advisor John Bolton. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The media, on the other hand, immediately interpreted Trump’s cancellation and the breakdown of negotiations as proof of North Korea’s <a href="https://twitter.com/marykissel/status/999654849619939333?s=20">bad-faith</a>and intransigence, that it is not serious about its commitments, and that Kim was simply “<a href="https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/999652705328091136?s=20">playing</a>” the victimized US.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">A little recap of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">actual </i>recent events is therefore in order.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The US Scuttles Peace<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">North Korea has recently made a number of important concessions. It had agreed to halt its missile tests and has made good on that commitment. It also agreed to accept the end-goal of denuclearization as a prerequisite of negotiations. These were the two main preconditions the US was demanding.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Furthermore, it recently released a number of US prisoners as a further show of good-will, and has completed the destruction of its only known nuclear test site, which <a href="http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2018/05/24/0200000000AEN20180524001855315.html?input=rss">foreign journalists</a> were allowed to witness.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">It has also pulled-back from its earlier position regarding the US-South Korean military drills, instead accepting that they will take place.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The US, in turn, had <a href="https://thediplomat.com/2018/04/us-south-korea-kick-off-annual-military-drill-without-us-strategic-assets/">scaled back</a> the military drills to not include “strategic assets”, meaning nuclear-capable aircraft. As well, it halted its position of enmity against the North. This can be seen in the marked shift from the beginning of the year when tensions were mounting and the threat of nuclear war was over the horizon.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In short, North Korea made extension concessions, while the US made extremely minor ones. Essentially, the US halted an already illegitimate posture of threatening to destroy a small nation which poses it no threat, while continuing highly threatening military drills, albeit ones that didn’t come with the threat of nuclear destruction attached. However, there were concessions on both sides and the chance of a possible peace settlement was therefore hopeful.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Recently, William J. Perry, who was directly involved in <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/north-korea-nuclear-deal-donald-trump-china-215034">the 1994 negotiations</a> between North Korea and the Clinton administration, <a href="http://www.wjperryproject.org/notes-from-the-brink/is-denuclearization-of-north-korea-possible">described</a>how the success of the current round of negotiations depends on building a mutual “sense of trust” and good faith on both sides.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Its important to note that the 1994 negotiations were the first time the US seriously pursued diplomacy with the North, which proved to be the only strategy that has ever yielded results. The US was able to obtain <a href="https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2017-08-15/north-koreas-nuclear-ambition-can-be-stopped-with-diplomacy">a temporary halt</a> to the North’s nuclear development. When the Bush administration came in and rejected diplomacy in favor of its own brand of “maximum pressure”, <a href="http://www.wjperryproject.org/notes-from-the-brink/the-north-korean-policy-review-what-happened-in-1999">the progress</a> <a href="https://search.proquest.com/docview/200716990?pq-origsite=gscholar">was undermined</a> and North Korea went on <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/diplomacy-with-north-korea-has-worked-before-and-can-work-again/">to obtain nuclear weapons</a> and to further build up its arsenal.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">How did the administration take Perry’s advice and enhance the “sense of trust” in the face of multiple North Korean good-faith concessions? First, John Bolton, who was <a href="https://www.mintpressnews.com/heres-how-john-bolton-could-sabotage-the-korea-peace-talks/240017/">a key figure</a> in the Bush administrations derailment of Clinton’s North Korea diplomacy, demanded complete capitulation from North Korea while threatening to destroy the country.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In an interview, Bolton said the US <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-bolton-us-using-libya-model-for-north-korea-negotiations">was pursuing</a> the “Libya model” for the negotiations. Libya gave up its nuclear program following US pressure, which then freed the US to later attack and destroy the country. Libya is therefore an example of US duplicity and a testament to the necessity of possessing a nuclear deterrent to ward off US aggression. Evoking the “Libya” model was a barely-disguised threat against North Korea and an effort to derail the negotiations.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Secondly, the US conducted more threatening military drills along the North’s border, which the US would of course find threatening if similar drills were conducted by Russia or China along the Canadian border. This time, the drills <a href="http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2018/05/10/0200000000AEN20180510012100315.html">were to include</a> nuclear-capable B-52’s, a reneging of the previous US concession to scale back the drills.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">According to reports, the original decision to include the B-52’s was done <a href="http://peaceinkoreanews.timshorrock.com/2018/05/17/presidential-adviser-moon-chung-in-on-the-dprks-warning-to-trump-and-bolton/">against the will</a> of South Korea, which, if true, exemplifies the neo-colonial relationship the US exerts over its South Korean client, erroneously described as a mutually-beneficial “alliance” in the media.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">With these moves, the US tarnished the mutual trust and good-faith that had been building, and North Korea <a href="https://twitter.com/JChengWSJ/status/996586112222052353">responded</a> by denouncing Bolton and threatening to cancel the Trump-Kim summit. The North was taking advantage of how badly Trump wanted the summit to take place; his desire to be seen as “the great statesmen” and a purveyor of world peace, a leader deserving of the Nobel prize.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The media <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/44557-how-corporate-media-are-undermining-a-us-north-korea-nuclear-weapons-deal?tmpl=component&amp;print=1">responded</a>to North Korea’s letter by proclaiming it was proof of the North’s subterfuge and untrustworthiness, blaming them for the breakdown of trust. The obvious effect of these kinds of narratives being to support state power and provide ideological cover to policies aimed only at power projection; to shield policymakers from scrutiny about what they are actually doing in the world, making aggressive actions seem defensive and justified.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In response to North Korea’s denunciation of Bolton and the US’ threats, the administration began to back off. It <a href="http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/search1/2603000000.html?cid=AEN20180516012551315">cancelled</a>the participation of the B-52’s and attempted <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000005832130/trump-bolton-north-korea-libya.html">to roll back</a> comments about the “Libya model.” Trump also walked-back his public demands of complete and immediate denuclearization, saying that a <a href="https://www.stripes.com/news/trump-says-he-might-accept-a-phase-in-of-north-korea-s-denuclearization-1.528895">gradual denuclearization</a> was perhaps a possibility.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">However, at the same time Trump issued <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/17/north-korea-trump-latest-warning-kim-jong-un-gaddafi">a new threat</a>, saying that if no deal was reached the Libya model would be back on and the US would engage in “total decimation” of the country. In short: either make a deal or we’ll murder you.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Vice President Pence then <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pence-north-korea-libya-model-kim-jong-un-summit-2018-5">doubled-down</a>on this by evoking Trump’s ultimatum while directly threatening the country, saying that if they don’t make a deal it will “end like the Libyan model ended” for them.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">North Korea <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korea-threatens-to-call-off-summit-calls-pence-a-political-dummy-1527122683">responded</a>by lashing out against Pence, saying that it will not be intimidated and will not capitulate to unilateral US demands. The press, again, latched onto this as proof of North Korean intransigence. Journalists <a href="https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/999650977971167232?s=20">cited</a>what they called North Korea’s threat of nuclear war as proof that it was being aggressive. In reality, <a href="http://www.nkleadershipwatch.org/2018/05/24/choe-son-hui-issues-statement-on-forthcoming-us-dprk-summit/">the statement</a> was much less dramatic and contained no threat: “Whether the US will meet us at a meeting room or encounter us at nuclear-to-nuclear showdown is entirely dependent upon the decision and behavior of the United States,” North Korea’s vice foreign minister wrote.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Not mentioned was how the US had threatened to “totally decimate” their country first, the North’s response therefore being incredibly mild. Also not mentioned was how North Korea has a <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-korea-will-not-use-its-nuclear-weapons-first-kim-jong-un-tells-congress-a7018906.html">no-first-use</a>nuclear policy while the US <a href="https://thebulletin.org/commentary/continuity-and-change-trump-administration%E2%80%99s-nuclear-posture-review11528">maintains</a>the right to a first strike. Nor that the entire reason for the North even having nukes in the first place is to ward off a US attack, a position that is only further justified by continued US threats and intransigence.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">North Korea essentially responded by saying: we’ll accept negotiations, not demands and threats. So if you’d like to go back to threatening us with nuclear destruction, then we’ll respond without backing down.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">So, while North Korea employs vitriolic and insulting language, in actuality their position is entirely understandable and has remained consistent throughout the years.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The Unsayable Reality<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The core issue of the entire North Korea situation is, and has been, the threat of US attack. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The US divided Korea in pure colonial fashion. It “decimated” its population during the Korean War, burning down “every town in North Korea” while erasing <a href="https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/38395/did-general-curtis-lemay-say-that-20-of-the-north-korean-population-had-been-ki">at least 13.5%</a> of its population. It followed this with economic and political strangulation, which is partly responsible for the starvation and famine that has transpired throughout the country’s history, as <a href="https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB164/EBB%20Doc%2010.pdf">is conceded</a> in the <a href="https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB164/EBB%20Doc%2012.pdf">internal</a><a href="https://unredacted.com/2017/11/08/what-would-cheney-advise-trump-on-north-korea/">US record</a>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Throughout all of this, the US maintained a posture of threatening hostility against the North, <a href="https://www.rawstory.com/2010/10/repeatedly-threatened-nukes-korea-declassified-documents/">repeatedly threatening</a> them with nuclear attack. In response to this existential threat, North Korea developed a nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to US aggression. This <a href="https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Military_and_Security_Developments_Involving_the_Democratic_Peoples_Republic_of_Korea_2015.PDF">has repeatedly</a> been <a href="https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&amp;did=750438">the assessment</a> of US intelligence, and was recently <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/opinion/sunday/clapper-north-korea.html">reiterated</a>by James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The position of the US during the negotiations has been one of demanding that North Korea give up its only means of defense against US aggression. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">When officials evoke the “Libya model” or demand full denuclearization as a prerequisite, they are demanding that North Korea give up its defenses without any recognition of the country’s legitimate security concerns; that it essentially bow on its knees in complete capitulation to US diktats, which would likely mean the eventual destruction of its country.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">It may not seem like much to us in America that our government decimated their population during the Korean War, or that their nation is under existential threat from US power, but it means something to North Koreans. Although Western pundits and analysts in effect have no skin in the game one way or the other – the <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/north-korea-nuclear-deal-donald-trump-china-215034">only way</a> the US is threatened by North Korea is if it launches an attack against them first, provoking a defensive response – for North Koreans and people living on the Korean peninsula it is a matter of life and death, especially when US policymakers threaten their security by making threats, ultimatums, and attempting to fly nuclear-capable aircraft along the peninsula.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Yet for the ideological indoctrinators who service state power, i.e. journalists and “experts”, nothing short of complete North Korean capitulation is acceptable. Anything less and its “proof” of North Korean subterfuge, intransigence, and deviousness.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">It is literally unsayable to discuss the relevant history and the core root of the problem. It cannot be said that the US is the aggressor, that the threat of US aggression is the main reason behind North Korea’s nuclear deterrent. These blasphemies contradict the ideological doctrines that the US is always defensive, that it always has the right to threaten or use force and violence against the world, while the world does not have the right to defend themselves against it.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">So, while the system of propaganda—commonly referred to as the “free press”—will do everything in its power to back up Trump’s claim of the US simply responding to North Korean “hostility”, the reality shows something entirely different.<o:p></o:p></div><br />Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-52124707508227120082018-05-19T09:49:00.000-07:002018-05-19T09:49:11.377-07:00US Embassy Move Tears Last Fig Leaf Off of Long-Standing US-Israeli Designs for Palestine<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; margin-bottom: 28px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-family: Georgia, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif;">While Israel claims “security” and “defense of its border” to justify the recent mass murder in Gaza, the historical record of Israel’s founding fathers and government planners paints a different picture entirely. Aware that an “injustice was unavoidable” for their state to be established, the early Zionist settlers adopted a position of pure hegemony towards the Palestinians — which continues to this day. They had to be “shown the power of Israel” through the “use of force” until they were “compelled to concede” and “submit” to Israeli rule.</span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; margin-bottom: 28px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; box-sizing: border-box;">Yet, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/world/middleeast/gaza-protests-palestinians-us-embassy.html">according</a></span><span style="background-color: #cccccc; box-sizing: border-box;">&nbsp;to President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, the recent move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem marks the start of “the journey to peace,” with “a strong America recognizing the truth.”</span></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; margin-bottom: 28px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">“What a glorious day!” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said of the event, telling Trump “You have made history.”</span></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; margin-bottom: 28px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Indeed — while legitimizing Israel’s colonization of Jerusalem, as well as the massacre in Gaza only miles away, all while proclaiming a dedication to “peace” and “truth” — the event perfectly encapsulates what the U.S. really means when it speaks of “peace,” and the “truth” of what policy towards the Palestinians really looks like.<br /><br /><i><a href="https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-embassy-move-to-jerusalem-glorious-day-in-israel-massacre-in-gaza/242136/">Keep Reading...</a></i></span></span></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-78753183565412783912018-05-15T17:14:00.001-07:002018-05-15T17:14:36.112-07:00The Massacre in Gaza: A Deliberate and Calculated Policy<div class="moduleItemIntrotext" style="line-height: 1.5; max-width: 640px !important; padding: 0px !important;"><div style="line-height: 1.467em !important; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />While the US is quick to label any act of resistance by the Palestinians as terrorism, it has yet to condemn Israel's calculated massacre of unarmed Palestinians, including children, during this and the preceding weeks. In fact, the Trump administration has gone out of its way to defend Israel's inhumane actions and repeatedly blocked the UN Security Council's attempts to investigate Israel's clear violation of international law.</span></span></div></div><div class="clr" style="border: 0px; clear: both; float: none; height: 0px; line-height: 0; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></div><div class="clr" style="border: 0px; clear: both; float: none; height: 0px; line-height: 0; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></div><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /><a class="moduleItemReadMore" href="http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/44486-the-massacre-in-gaza-a-deliberate-and-calculated-policy" style="background-color: #cccccc; color: #9c162e; font-style: italic; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Read more...</a></span>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-59818553239610778702018-03-26T18:47:00.000-07:002018-03-26T21:36:37.761-07:00Media Says North Korea's Nukes are Offensive. US Intel Says They're Not<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst"><br />The recent diplomatic breakthrough between the Trump administration and North Korea provides a hopeful opportunity for peaceful resolution to the crisis on the Korean peninsula. Immediately after the announcement, the media went into overdrive to try <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/never-mind-the-north-korea-meeting-trump-was-just-babbling.html">and undermine</a> the development, worrying more about <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-kim-jong-un-north-korea-meeting-reaction-2018-3">photographs</a>of Kim Jung-Un than of preventing nuclear war.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">This, however, is only the latest iteration in a long history of media reporting which has enabled an aggressive US foreign policy.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">While the momentum during the Olympic Games was pushing towards détente, the Trump administration ramped up its “maximum pressure” campaign. Meanwhile, the media constantly reminded its audiences of the threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons. A threat not only to the people of the region—but likely even the United States itself. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">When faced with such a threat the bellicose posturing of the Trump administration seems perhaps to have been warranted. After all, if the US does not coerce North Korea into denuclearization, what else will protect us?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">There is a problem though. This threat is not real. North Korea’s nuclear program—according to official US intelligence assessments—is defensive. Its overall military posture is designed to deter an attack – exactly the kind that Trump has threatened them with. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">By falsely portraying North Korea as the aggressor, the press have functioned much in the same way that state-sponsored propaganda would, bolstering an aggressive foreign policy despite the chance that it will descend the world into a possible nuclear war.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b style="text-indent: 0in;"><i><br /></i></b><b style="text-indent: 0in;"><i>The Threat of Deterrence</i></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The most authoritative assessments of US military intelligence have repeatedly concluded that North Korea’s nuclear program is defensive. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The most recent <a href="https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Military_and_Security_Developments_Involving_the_Democratic_Peoples_Republic_of_Korea_2015.PDF">report</a>available, published by the Department of Defense in 2015, concludes that the military capabilities of the North are designed “to deter external attack.” North Korea’s “overarching national security objectives” are to develop nuclear weapons, gain recognition as a nuclear armed state, and thereby establish the “maintenance of a viable deterrent capability.” In terms of “North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs,” the DoD clearly explains that “DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) leaders see these programs as necessary for a credible deterrent capability essential to its survival.” <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">A similar assessment is given in the <a href="https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&amp;did=750438">2013 report</a>. The report notes that the objectives of the North Korean regime “have not changed markedly from those pursued by Kim Jong Il,” the country’s previous leader who came to power in the 1990’s. North Korean leaders have seen “these programs, absent normalized relations with the international community, as leading to a credible deterrence capability essential its goals of survival.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Despite the public availability of these assessments, the mainstream media continues to portray these programs as offensive. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In a <i>New York Times</i> report from February 13, titled “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/world/asia/north-korea-pence-talks.html">U.S. Opens Door to North Korea Talks, a Victory for South’s President</a>”, the authors uncritically quote Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, as saying that the current leader of North Korea, Kim Jung-Un, “probably sees nuclear ICBMs as leverage to achieve his long-term strategic ambition to end Seoul’s alliance with Washington and to eventually dominate the peninsula.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">While journalists routinely cite such statements from US intelligence officials uncritically, they eschew the most exhaustive assessments produced by the officials’ own agencies. If the <a href="https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Report_to_Congress_on_Military_and_Security_Developments_Involving_the_DPRK.pdf">DoD report</a> from 2012 had been consulted, it would have been understood that while in the 60s &amp; 70s the North did have “reason to believe its goal of reunification on its own terms was a possibility”, ever since the 1990s “North Korea has largely abandoned unilaterally enforced reunification as a practical goal.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">On the diplomatic side, the <i>Times</i> article explains that “the Trump administration has long resisted” the approach of peaceful negotiation because it does not want to “be drawn into a negotiation like that of the Clinton administration in 1994, which resulted in a deal North Korea later broke.” This last point is stated plainly as fact. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The secretary of defense for President Clinton at that time, who was directly involved in negotiating that deal, says the opposite.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">William Perry <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/north-korea-nuclear-deal-donald-trump-china-215034">explains</a>that while the agreement was “imperfectly implemented” it did in fact “effectively halt the regime’s nuclear progress for a time.” Attempts to iron-out a more permanent agreement, which “were tantalizingly close”, only collapsed when the incoming Bush administration cut-off all dialogue with the North and “abandoned Clinton’s diplomatic plan for his own more confrontational model”, thereby losing “a priceless opportunity.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Importantly, Perry also says that “while [the North Korean leadership] is evil and sometimes reckless,” it is not “crazy or suicidal.” It knows “that if it launches a nuclear attack, the American response would bring death to the leadership and devastation to its country. … The arsenal achieves its goal only if North Korea does not use it.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">By omitting this crucial context, the <i>Times</i> lends undo credibility to the Trump administration’s approach, and further enables the push towards possible nuclear war.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b><i>Hyping the Threat<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">3 More articles from February, <i>The New York Times’</i>, “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/world/asia/north-koreans-olympics.html">Seeing Bounty Abroad, Will North Koreans Change Their Homeland?</a>”, the <i>Washington Post’s</i>, “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/did-kim-jong-uns-historic-missile-get-a-boost-from-old-soviet-weapons/2018/02/15/b8085ba6-1291-11e8-9570-29c9830535e5_story.html?utm_term=.7125e6b98b97">Did Kim Jong Un’s ‘historic’ missile get a boost from old Soviet weapons?</a>”, and the <i>Washington Post’s</i>, “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/south-korean-president-says-olympics-have-lowered-tensions-with-north/2018/02/17/9ce01a9a-13bc-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.ec17309d42cf">South Korean president says Olympics have lowered tensions with North</a>”, all paint a similar picture.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In the <i>Times</i>piece, the main explanation of North Korea’s behavior is left to a University professor of Korean studies, who echoes the mainstream consensus when he says that North Korea “remains a menacing nuclear state.” No attempt is made to ask what might explain this seemingly erratic behavior, nor what it would feel like to be in North Korea’s shoes, to have the world’s superpower <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-un-north-korean-leader-suicide-mission-n802596">threaten</a>to “totally destroy” your country. It is simply not considered whether such things have anything to do with those “menacing” defensive nukes.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The <i>Washington Post</i> articles add to the paranoia.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In the first, a vivid description is depicted of “the 75-foot-tall colossus… one of two intercontinental ballistic missiles to appear abruptly on North Korean launchpads last year, and the first with sufficient range to strike cities across the continental United States.” <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In the second, the authors similarly describe how “the North has made rapid nuclear progress in recent years, and some experts say the country has successfully miniaturized a nuclear warhead - the kind of weapon it could use to target the U.S. mainland.” These articles descend to the level of scaremongering because they make no effort to ask <i>why</i> these capabilities are being built. If it was understood that the only way in which these “colossus” missiles would ever threaten “to target the U.S. mainland” is if the Trump administration launches an attack against North Korea first—thus provoking a retaliation—people might have harsher things to say about the administration’s behavior.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">History is also turned on its head. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The <i>Post</i>tells its readers that “until recently, relations with North Korea seemed at a crisis point. North Korea was testing nuclear weapons, launching missiles toward Japan, all as President Trump said the United States was ‘locked and loaded’ to respond.” Another <i>Washington Post</i> piece, “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/the-leaders-of-both-koreas-feel-like-they-won-gold-medals-this-week/2018/02/15/d658eafa-11a4-11e8-a68c-e9374188170e_story.html">The leaders of both Koreas feel like they won gold medals this week</a>”, similarly frames the situation as the US simply responding to North Korean provocations: “After a year of threats, actual and rhetorical, fired from North Korea toward the United States, the sudden burst of inter-Korean diplomacy has turned the focus away from Washington, at least temporarily.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The most prominent academic scholars say the actual history has been the opposite. Instead, the pattern has been one where a reduction in tensions initiated by the US usually results in a North Korean reciprocation. Conversely, when the US acts aggressively the North tends to respond in kind, usually with some kind of ballistic missile test. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><a href="https://search.proquest.com/openview/5fd2f50a9ff3bdf31ced7b017c502e90/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&amp;cbl=41559">According to</a> one of the most prominent scholars on the subject, Leon V. Sigal, director of the Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council in New York, “Pyongyang in fact has been playing tit for tat-reciprocating whenever Washington cooperates and retaliating whenever Washington reneges-in an effort to end enmity.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Indeed, if the Trump-North Korea summit breaks down and the US increases its threats and war-games we can expect to see more missile tests from North Korea in response, and for the media to depict them as aggressive and hostile provocations.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b><i>Diplomatic Cover<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The way the <i>Washington Post </i>decided to report on the Trump administration’s recent implementation of additional sanctions against North Korea, in “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-largest-ever-set-of-sanctions-against-north-korea/2018/02/23/42e1afb8-18a8-11e8-92c9-376b4fe57ff7_story.html">Trump administration unveils sanctions aimed at starving North Korea of resources</a>”, was not to warn against the likelihood that they might undermine the slim opportunities for peaceful negotiations, nor to denounce the negative impact they will have on the wellbeing of the North Korean population—but to help justify the decision. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The sanctions come “as the Trump administration seeks new ways to intensify pressure on North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, whose increasingly advanced missile and nuclear weapon programs have made the isolated nation the most pressing foreign threat facing the United States.” For this statement to be taken seriously, the reader would have to believe that the North Korean leadership is not only brutal, but downright “crazy or suicidal.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The article ends with Nikki Haley, the United States’ UN representative, extolling the practice of using economic suffering as diplomatic leverage, while also castigating the North Koreans for refusing to willfully curtail their attempts to defend themselves: “Even though North Korea has yet to end its nuclear and missile programs, we know the sanctions are having a real impact. The regime has less and less money to spend on its ballistic missile tests and less capacity to threaten other countries with those tests.” <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The <i>Post</i>takes this account at face-value, offering no criticisms of its accuracy nor of its moral legitimacy. The perception that we have the right to threaten and coerce whoever we want while they do not have the right to defend against this seems to have transcended into the realm of unquestionable and accepted dogma.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The lasting consequence of this kind of reporting is to provide diplomatic cover for the aggressive policies of the US government, helping to justify actions that would likely be condemned if the population had access to the full picture. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">It is precisely this type of priming of the narrative that enables pundits to <a href="https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/971943500987105280">throw scorn</a>upon peaceful negotiations and to favor instead the threatening of aggression and war.<o:p></o:p></div><br /><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Indeed, it is only with the aid of the mass media that someone like Trump could have gotten away with threatening to “totally destroy” a country for attempting to defend itself, or for people to see military action taken against North Korea – the one thing that does threatens to send nukes into the United States – as necessary to protect the population from nukes.</div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia, &quot;Palatino Linotype&quot;, Palatino, serif;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">------------------------</span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia, &quot;Palatino Linotype&quot;, Palatino, serif;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia, &quot;Palatino Linotype&quot;, Palatino, serif; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;"><i>Steven Chovanec is an independent journalist and analyst based in Chicago, Illinois. He has a bachelor’s degree in International Studies and Sociology from Roosevelt University, and has written for numerous outlets such as The Hill, TeleSUR, Truthout, MintPress News, Consortium News, INSURGE intelligence, and others. F</i><i>ollow him on Twitter&nbsp;</i><a href="https://twitter.com/stevechovanec" style="color: #d44f00; text-decoration-line: none;"><i>@stevechovanec</i></a><i>.</i></span></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-18063343053218402522018-03-24T13:46:00.001-07:002018-03-24T13:48:29.843-07:00Trump's Tariffs: A Reimbursement to Campaign Donors<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst"><br />A lot of the debate surrounding Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs misses key points.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_Hlk508983264"><br /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal">Many who have vehemently rejected the measures have exaggerated the harms that are likely to be caused by them. The arguments mainly stem from a desire to safeguard the global economic architecture that has been pursued by decades of previous administrations, commonly referred to as "globalization."<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Really, this represents one specific form of global interconnection, one that has been constructed by, and for, the interests of Western economic elites. It has been championed by US administrations because it expands US influence and control throughout the world and the primary beneficiaries are US and allied nations’ corporations. A debate that oscillates either between Trumpian nationalism or this formulation of globalization is a false dichotomy.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In terms of the effects of the tariffs, price raises are likely to be <a href="https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2018-03-05/dont-sweat-trumps-steel-and-aluminum-tariffs">barely noticeable</a> for consumers, while the loss of employment in other affected sectors is likely <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-worry-a-trade-war-could-derail-u-s-growth-1521122582">to outweigh any benefits</a>&nbsp;within the steel and aluminum industries, resulting in a net loss. The main threat though lies elsewhere: that the tariffs will provoke retaliatory measures from trading partners like the EU which will harm export industries. Therefore, they “may help protect the minority of workers in the targeted industries, but at some cost to the majority in others,” as Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/05/we-know-what-bad-trade-policy-looks-like-but-what-about-good-trade-policy/">commented</a>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">But the knee-jerk opposition to anything protectionist is also misguided.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Protecting Profits, Not People<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Every major advanced industrial economy rose to its position <a href="http://www.personal.ceu.hu/corliss/CDST_Course_Site/Readings_old_2012_files/Ha-Joon%20Chang%20-%20Kicking%20Away%20the%20Ladder-The%20%E2%80%9CReal%E2%80%9D%20History%20of%20Free%20Trade.pdf">as a result of government intervention</a> that protected its domestic industries, including the United States. The modern innovation being that the US, after building up its industries using protections, used its global influence to break-down trade barriers worldwide once its companies were in a position to dominate and profit from global competition. This is called “<a href="http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm">kicking away the ladder</a>” that was used to get to the top.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">US-directed liberalization therefore&nbsp;<a href="https://deanbaker.net/books/rigged.htm">mainly benefitted</a> Western corporate owners <a href="http://cepr.net/publications/failed-what-the-experts-got-wrong-about-the-global-economy">at the expense</a> of the masses of working people. It led to massive <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/367230409/Wir2018-Summary">increases in inequality</a> and consolidation <a href="https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/an-economy-for-the-1-how-privilege-and-power-in-the-economy-drive-extreme-inequ-592643">of profits at the top</a>, <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2013-04-03/austerity-delusion">brutal austerity</a> measures that have shifted costs onto vulnerable populations, and a rise in legitimate anti-establishment grievances that <a href="https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/The-American-Dual-Economy-Race-Globalization-and-the-Politics-of-Exclusion.pdf">created the conditions</a> for populist demagogues like Trump to win office.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Some form of protectionism might help to alleviate those disaffected by the globalized economy, but Trump is going about it in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">While Trump routinely employs worker-friendly language, his policies <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/41953-the-trump-administration-will-always-side-with-corporations-over-labor">have been structured</a> specifically to increase the profits of a small group of wealthy business owners and to exacerbate the suffering and marginalization of everybody else.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The examples are far too many to list, but nearly every proposal has followed this basic template. The latest iterations include the Department of Labor (DOL) proposal that would allow employers <a href="http://www.epi.org/press/dol-scrubs-economic-analysis-that-showed-its-tip-pooling-rule-would-be-terrible-for-workers/">to take worker’s tips</a>. The administration even tried hiding just how harmful this would be by <a href="http://www.epi.org/press/dol-scrubs-economic-analysis-that-showed-its-tip-pooling-rule-would-be-terrible-for-workers/">deliberately scrubbing its own estimates</a> showing billions would be transferred to employers if the rule was approved.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Other DOL proposals seek to allow employers <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/labor-department-to-test-voluntary-reporting-program-1520369135">to self-regulate</a> their failures to pay their workers, the predictable results of which do not have to be stated. The infrastructure plan as well was designed to <a href="http://michael-hudson.com/2018/02/tollbooth-trump/">transfer money from the population to investors</a> by <a href="https://ellenbrown.com/2018/02/27/funding-infrastructure-why-china-is-running-circles-around-america/">funding the rebuilding process</a> through private investment, which will seek to accrue a profit by charging the population with tolls and other user fees, subordinating the rebuilding of infrastructure to the interests of private owners at the expense of the public. Or the massive upward redistribution of wealth that is the tax-cuts, mainly geared toward <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/distributional-analysis-conference-agreement-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/full">enriching the already very wealthy</a>. This has been followed up by <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-push-on-taxes-republicans-line-up-welfare-revamp-next-1512469801">calls</a> from opportunistic “deficit-hawks” to cut public programs that benefit working people in the name of “budget reform.” This is exactly what Trump’s 2019 budget proposes, exemplified in its “food-box” program that is designed to <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-budget-poor-americans-20180212-story.html">drastically reduce spending</a> on assistance that helps to feed poor people. Or the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/business/banks-senate-dodd-frank-financial.html">current push</a> to deregulate Wall-Street, risking another collapse that will inevitably harm the working-class poor most of all. And <a href="http://www.epi.org/blog/year-one-of-the-trump-administration/">the list</a> goes on, and on.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In keeping with this, the steel and aluminum tariffs are essentially a gift to the business-owners who helped to fund Trump’s campaign.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Follow the Money<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Political scientists have amassed <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo3624792.html">an authoritative body of research</a> showing that elections in the US are, above all else, competitions between competing financiers. Campaign costs are very high, and the barrier to entry is more than most can afford, therefore influence over electoral outcomes “passes by default to major investor groups” who can bear these costs. Funding is forwarded to candidates from various investor blocs who then compete with each other for control over the state. Campaign funding alone is the dominant determinant of electability. In short, elections are <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/06/ferguson-clinton-sanders-election-democratic-party-trump/">essentially bought</a>. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Candidates therefore must present policy platforms that attract funding from economic elites. Because of this, only the positions that can be financed are presented to voters. This funding acts as a filter which sifts out any platform that is not amenable to the interests of the dominant investors. The innovation in 2016 was that both Sanders and Trump were able to break through this filter. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The pioneer of this research, Thomas Ferguson, has released <a href="https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/research-papers/industrial-structure-and-party-competition-in-an-age-of-hunger-games">a new study paper</a> that systematically breaks down the 2016 elections, shedding important new light on this historical phenomenon. Astonishingly, Bernie Sanders was able to establish a genuine grass-roots movement that collectively amassed enough money through small donations from average citizens to seriously contend with the Wall-Street backed Clinton campaign. Clinton only won the Democratic primaries as a result of the DNC <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wikileaks-emails-show-dnc-favored-hillary-clinton-over_us_57930be0e4b0e002a3134b05">manipulations</a> that stemmed this tide of genuine democracy.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In Trump’s case, he was able to act and talk the way he did because he was a billionaire who could fund his own campaign and was therefore not beholden to the traditional Republican investors. “To many spectators,” Ferguson writes, “the truncated range” of discussion amongst the establishment Republican candidates sounded “as though everyone on stage in the debates was in the iron grip of some powerful force blocking normal human speech. This, of course, was because they were.” Trump’s ability to break this spell by opening his wallet was like “throwing open a tomb that had been sealed for ages,” electrifying many Americans who harbored grievances with the status-quo. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">But the research points to an influx of corporate funding as being the deciding factor that secured Trump’s victory.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Initially, Trump’s corporate-funding came from traditional Republican donors. Big Pharma, tobacco, oil, and “mining, especially coal mining”—making the push to revitalize coal easy to understand. “Money from executives at the big banks also began streaming in,” though the decisive “torrent” came from private equity and hedge funds. Combined with “oil, chemicals, mining and a handful of other industries,” large private equity firms likely accounted for a “giant wave of dark money” that rushed into the Trump campaign in the final weeks. Deregulation, therefore, has been a top priority of the administration.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The rest came from companies located within the old industrial states that have been gutted by globalization, “from firms in steel, rubber, machinery, and other industries whose impulses to protection figured to benefit from” Trump’s nationalistic rhetoric.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">It is not surprising then that Trump has constructed his protectionism to benefit these industries. The likely result of the tariffs, according to Michael Hudson, professor of economics at Peking University in Beijing, will be <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BGIk52hNkI">to enable</a> “the steel and aluminum companies to use their increased profits for share buybacks and to pay dividends,” which is how&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/boom-in-share-buybacks-renews-question-of-who-wins-from-tax-cuts-1519900200?mod=searchresults&amp;page=1&amp;pos=1">most of the proceeds</a> from the tax cuts <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/d62e3e34-1d3b-11e8-956a-43db76e69936#myft:saved-articles:page">appear to have been utilized</a> so far.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As well, the steel and aluminum companies will be reliant on the tariffs staying in place to maintain their newfound profits, therefore securing their support and funding for Trump’s reelection campaign.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>No Alternatives?<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">But the hodgepodge mixture of investors that make up the Trump coalition are, in Ferguson’s words, “extremely unstable.” They have little in common besides “their intense dislike of existing forms of American government.” “The world of private equity,” for instance, “intent on gaining access to the gigantic, rapidly growing securities markets of China and the rest of Asia,” are “likely to coexist only fitfully with American industries struggling to cope with world overcapacity in steel and other products or facing twenty-first century mercantilist state targeting.” The <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-trumps-trade-war-how-the-protectionists-beat-the-free-traders-1520611990">debate</a> within the administration between “nationalism” and “globalism” is representative of these contradictions.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">These, however, are not the only options available.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">An alternate possibility, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/05/we-know-what-bad-trade-policy-looks-like-but-what-about-good-trade-policy/">proposed</a> by the economist Dean Baker, is to formulate a trade policy that embraces globalization in an inclusive way that reduces inequality. His recommendation is to subsidize job creation to help aid domestic industries that have been harmed by trade, therefore helping those who have been most harmed by globalization: the industrial workers. He also advocates eliminating protections for highly paid professions (like doctors) as well as those of government-granted pharmaceutical patents (both of which drastically inflate medical costs). This would help to mitigate the upward redistribution of wealth, while also drastically reducing bloated medical costs that are a major burden to Americans.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Another economist, professor Richard D. Wolff, emphasizes domestic changes that would have an international effect. As Wolff <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9GTlY-tg7M">suggests</a>, if domestic enterprises were <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/20991-worker-coops-and-left-strategy">organized democratically</a>, they would be much less likely to engage in the kind of harmful economic activity that is prevalent today. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">For example, if the decisions within the firm were made by democratic vote among all who worked there, rather than by a small group of profit-seeking owners at the top, how likely would they be to decide to shut down their factories, destroy their own jobs, and move production abroad to take advantage of cheap labor?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="line-height: 200%;"></div><div class="MsoNormal">Indeed, the options are plenty, and not very hard to imagine. Not once the constraints of the current doctrinal orthodoxies are thrown aside, and once policies are crafted with the interests of people in mind, not profit.<i><o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">------------------------</div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="text-indent: 0in;"><i>Steven Chovanec is an independent journalist and analyst based in Chicago, Illinois. He has a bachelor’s degree in International Studies and Sociology from Roosevelt University, and has written for numerous outlets such as The Hill, TeleSUR, Truthout, MintPress News, Consortium News, Insurge-Intelligence, and others. F</i><i>ollow him on Twitter </i><a href="https://twitter.com/stevechovanec"><i>@stevechovanec</i></a><i>.<o:p></o:p></i></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-42615816177834035992018-03-21T13:44:00.001-07:002018-03-21T13:44:57.104-07:00In Venezuela, It's "Democracy" if US-Backed Candidates Are Empowered, "Tyranny" if They Are Not<div style="font-family: Georgia, &quot;times new roman&quot;, Times, serif; line-height: 1.467em !important; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 15px !important;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">The Venezuelan government recently announced its decision to hold presidential elections, which are&nbsp;</span><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics/venezuela-postpones-presidential-election-to-may-20-idUSKCN1GD5TM" style="color: #9c162e; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">currently scheduled</a><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">&nbsp;for May. The Trump administration&nbsp;</span><a href="https://ni.usembassy.gov/presidential-elections-announced-venezuela/" style="color: #9c162e; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">denounced the move</a><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">, saying they "would not be free and fair."</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, &quot;times new roman&quot;, Times, serif; line-height: 1.467em !important; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 15px !important;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">Last year, the administration&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/25/statement-press-secretary-new-financial-sanctions-venezuela" style="color: #9c162e; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">announced</a>&nbsp;an unprecedented escalation of sanctions against the country. This, too, was justified under humanitarian pretexts. The US&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-presidents-continuation-national-emergency-respect-venezuela/" style="color: #9c162e; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">says</a>&nbsp;its actions are a response to the government's "serious abuses of human rights and fundamental freedoms."</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, &quot;times new roman&quot;, Times, serif; line-height: 1.467em !important; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 15px !important;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">US Sen. Marco Rubio&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/969164184905748480" style="color: #9c162e; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">has even advocated</a>&nbsp;that "the military of Venezuela must remove [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro" under&nbsp;<a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article202764209.html" style="color: #9c162e; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">the justification</a>&nbsp;that "Maduro and his inner circle have destroyed democracy and replaced it with dictatorship."</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, &quot;times new roman&quot;, Times, serif; line-height: 1.467em !important; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 15px !important;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">Within this context, the former CIA director, Mike Pompeo -- who has recently moved into the position of Secretary of State --&nbsp;<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-venezuela-crisis-government-mike-pompeo-helping-install-new-remarks-a7859771.html" style="color: #9c162e; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">admitted</a>&nbsp;in his capacity as head of the CIA that the agency would like to see Maduro overthrown, and suggested last summer that it is working with others in the region to do so. "We are very hopeful that there can be a transition in Venezuela and we, the CIA, is doing its best to understand the dynamic there," Pompeo&nbsp;<a href="https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Venezuelan-Foreign-Minister-Denounces-CIA-Interference-20170724-0015.html" style="color: #9c162e; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">said</a>, adding, "I was just down in Mexico City and in Bogota [Colombia] a week before last talking about this very issue, trying to help them understand the things they might do, so that they can get a better outcome for their part of the world and our part of the world."</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, &quot;times new roman&quot;, Times, serif; line-height: 1.467em !important; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 15px !important;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">Such actions and statements would not be possible without the humanitarian pretext. But the labelling of the Maduro government's actions as "dictatorial" also serves another purpose.</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, &quot;times new roman&quot;, Times, serif; line-height: 1.467em !important; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 15px !important;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;">Within Venezuela, the US has systematically branded any political action it deems unfavorable as an illegitimate and dictatorial move of the government, while labelling actions which help to empower the parties the US looks favorably on as synonymous with the will of the "Venezuelan people." In this way, the US can use its influence over public opinion to pressure Venezuela into taking actions that help to put the US-backed opposition in power.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/43900-in-venezuela-it-s-democracy-if-us-backed-candidates-are-empowered-tyranny-if-they-are-not">Continue reading...</a></span></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-74647144563413248972018-02-21T11:48:00.002-08:002018-02-21T11:48:49.579-08:00Without Changing a Stripe, ISIS Morphs from US’s Deadly Enemy to Useful Weapon to Perfect TargetWhile President Trump has recently <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/30/us/politics/sotu-trump.html">hailed the defeat of ISIS</a>, the group has been able to stave-off a complete defeat by retreating to a few, small remaining pockets in Syria.<br /><br />One of these pockets, located east of the Euphrates along Syria’s border with Iraq, is surrounded by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a grouping of Kurdish militias that are trained and armed by the U.S., and who act as the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition’s leading partner in the fight against ISIS. And while the SDF and the coalition engage in battle with ISIS further south near Abu-Kamal, that is not the case in this pocket to the north. The fighters operating within this area do not have to fear coalition attacks or SDF assaults. Instead, they have been free to conduct their activities unimpeded, despite being surrounded by U.S. allies on the ground and U.S. aircraft overhead.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.mintpressnews.com/isis-morphs-from-deadly-enemy-in-syria-to-useful-weapon-in-abu-kamal/237896/">Continue reading...</a>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-54452200975492078802018-02-20T10:57:00.000-08:002018-02-20T11:14:42.656-08:00The US is protecting ISIS to weaken rivals, expand US occupation of SyriaThe dominant view of the US-led coalition against the Islamic State (ISIS), <a href="http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/NEWS-ARTICLES/News-Article-View/Article/884877/iraq-and-syria-operations-against-isil-designated-as-operation-inherent-resolve/">Operation Inherent Resolve</a>, is that its fundamental goal is the defeat of ISIS.<br /><br />And so, in the wake of the routing of ISIS from Iraq and Syria, the core justification for an ongoing US military presence in Syria is ensuring that no post-mortem ISIS insurgency arises.<br /><br />That the US is unequivocally opposed to ISIS is simply taken for granted.<br /><br />Yet a closer look at the history of US involvement shows that counterterrorism has been a lesser concern relative to geopolitical and strategic goals. Whenever the goals of expanding territorial control or weakening rivals conflicts with the goal of opposing ISIS, the entity was either ignored or even empowered in pursuit of these more paramount concerns.<br /><br /><a href="https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/the-us-is-protecting-isis-to-weaken-rivals-expand-us-occupation-of-syria-f7b3e7d01d0d">Continue reading...</a>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-43528233097952620612018-02-07T18:06:00.001-08:002018-02-07T18:08:08.267-08:00The US [was] Aiding an al-Qaeda Emirate in Syria<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">[<i>Editors Note: This report is from August 2017. It is now outdated, especially given the Syrian government's operations inside Idlib. Its main purpose was to highlight how the Western powers have been propping up an al-Qaeda safe-haven in Idlib for years, and how it got to be dominated by al-Qaeda in the first place. Hopefully this can help shed further light on the history behind the situation in Idlib, and give the proper context that can help to contextualize the media propaganda regarding it.</i></span><br /><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><i>Apologies as well for the lack of reports. New reports will be forthcoming very soon- stay tuned :)&nbsp;</i>]</span><br /><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">For years the Syrian province of Idlib has been under the de-facto control of Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria which has now rebranded as Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and allied jihadist groups. Western governments have also been pouring in humanitarian assistance ostensibly to support the beleaguered civilian population. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">However, these programs are also bolstering al-Qaeda. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Despite the implications of this, press coverage has been scarce. When it is reported coverge is uncritically supportive.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">As Nusra’s control becomes more overt, donors are rethinking their efforts. Yet these organizations have been conducting their operations for years while the same fundamental situation was present: al-Qaeda held de-facto control, and they were helping to prop-up an Islamist emirate with the aid of Western social and administrative assistance.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Promoting Democracy<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">A coalition of foreign donors, NGOs, and humanitarian organizations are being coordinated and funded outside of the United Nations framework by the United States, and to a smaller extent its European allies. These have seen a steady stream of foreign support enter into Idlib for multiple years now. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">The extent and breadth of the aid is quite enormous, ranging from necessary staples such as food and medicine all the way down through “</span><a href="https://www.irinnews.org/analysis/2017/08/15/new-order-border-can-foreign-aid-get-past-syria-s-jihadis"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">political stabilization assistance</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">”, which essentially consists of US-funded and directed governance and municipality operations which aim to set up a functional and alternate state apparatus that is independent from the Syrian government. This covers everything from distributing subsidized aid, food, and fuel, to the setting up of schools, clinics, and local administrative councils, the paying of municipal salaries, etc., all the way down to garbage collection, road repairs, and infrastructure maintenance. Essentially the social and administrative framework for a functional 21<sup>st</sup> century industrial society.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">It is important to understand the implications of this. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">During the Arab Spring protests in Egypt it became clear that the success of the nascent uprising depended largely on its ability to create independent spaces outside of the control of the traditional state-system, where new ideals and values could have room to transform into tangible societal change. If the congregation of protesters were able to organize and administer their own incipient societies within effectively self-governing spaces, they would have to be taken seriously by the authorities and would hold negotiation leverage, having largely extricated themselves from state-dependence.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">The same basic principles apply to an outside power attempting to undermine and/or overthrow the government of another state, and such realities are of course understood by the United States as it sets up independent structures under the influence of its proxy militias, aid organizations, and municipality councils.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">At core, this is as a modern form of imperialism: the overtaking of another nation’s territories and extricating them under your control. Instead of using colonial armies and viceroys however it is done through proxy </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">guerrillas</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">&nbsp;and NGOs. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">This idea has been raised by the esteemed scholar of international relations John J. Mearsheimer, professor at the University of Chicago, who explains that such “democracy promotion” political assistance programs are, fundamentally, a way of </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCcxvzEKwjI"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">ousting foreign leaders and replacing them with pro-US clients</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">However, there is a deeper problem inherent to all of this. Namely that Idlib has been under the military control of al-Qaeda and other radical terror groups since it was overtaken from government hands in 2015, and that the United States and its allies are therefore subsidizing the civil-service apparatus of the al-Qaeda militias that operate as the de-facto rulers of the province.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Useful Terrorists<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">The contemporary situation in Idlib is the product of a joint offensive in 2015 which captured the provincial capital and solidified the province under opposition control.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">The takeover was itself the product of an amalgamation of the various opposition factions into tightly-organized military-command structures dominated and led by the hard-line jihadist extremist groups. This was facilitated by the coordinated efforts of the various backers of the opposition, the United States, Turkey, and Gulf monarchies, and exemplifies the level of influence these state-sponsors were able to exert over their proxies.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Turkey and Saudi Arabia </span><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150508173130/http:/www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/07/turkey-saudi-arabia-syria-rebels-pact_n_7232750.html"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">officially coordinated assistance</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> to the newly formed Army of Conquest coalition,&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">led by Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham and supported by the various US-backed FSA groups,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">&nbsp;to assist the effort, while Qatar </span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-new-cooperation-on-syria/2015/05/12/bdb48a68-f8ed-11e4-9030-b4732caefe81_story.html"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">played a key sponsorship role</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> as well.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">However, </span><a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/05/why-assad-is-losing-syria-islamists-saudi/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">rebel commanders revealed</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> that it was specifically the influence of the US military operatives overseeing support to the insurgency that facilitated the organization of the “moderates” into a military structure commanded by al-Qaeda-affiliates and their allies. “The US-led operations room[s] in southern Turkey” and Jordan, the commanders told Charles Lister, were “instrumental in facilitating their [Islamists’] involvement in the operation.” Far from barring CIA-backed groups from coordinating with al-Qaeda, as Western officials continually claimed, the US-led operations rooms “specifically encouraged a closer cooperation with Islamists commanding frontline operations.” However, this US-directed alliance between al-Qaeda and the FSA was only really a more overt example </span><a href="https://warontherocks.com/2017/08/a-deadly-delusion-were-syrias-rebels-ever-going-to-defeat-the-jihadists/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">of what had been going on</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span><a href="http://roguenationblog.com/2017/01/26/syria-propaganda-anti-imperialism-101/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">for years</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Commenting on this, </span><a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/endless-enemies-how-us-supporting-islamic-state-fighting-it-1621962798"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">leading political scientist Dr. Nafeez Ahmed wrote</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> that “in other words, al-Qaeda’s official arm in Syria, and another group closely affiliated with al-Qaeda, were among the “moderate” vetted groups receiving arms and aid from the Gulf states and Turkey, under the supervision of US military intelligence operatives in the field.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">The </span><a href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/05/05-assad-losing-syria-lister?cid=00900015020149101US0001-0507"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">US and its allies</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> then “dramatically increased [their] levels of assistance and provisions of intelligence” to the opposition, including the introduction of </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/24/syria-iran-isis-battle-arab-world?CMP=share_btn_tw"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">“gamechanging” advanced weaponry</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> such as TOW anti-tank missiles. The British press </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/24/syria-iran-isis-battle-arab-world?CMP=share_btn_tw"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">reported</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> the results of this “were shocking.” The capital of Idlib fell within days. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">It was </span><a href="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/how-to-prevent-al-qaeda-from-seizing-a-safe-zone-in-northwestern-syria"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">noted</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> by knowledgeable observers that “the jihadist contribution was fundamental to these victories… suicide bombers from JN's [Jabhat al-Nusra’s] fellow al-Qaeda affiliate Jund al-Aqsa played a major role in opening access to the provincial capital of Idlib city.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">This had horrendous, yet not unforeseeable, real-world implications for the surrounding villages. The Century Foundation’s Sam Heller </span><a href="https://warontherocks.com/2017/08/a-deadly-delusion-were-syrias-rebels-ever-going-to-defeat-the-jihadists/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">documented</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> how the newly-victorious al-Nusra-Ahrar alliance very quickly “then&nbsp;</span><a href="http://jihadology.net/2015/05/12/guest-post-abdullah-al-muheisini-weighs-in-on-killing-of-alawite-women-and-children/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">blazed a path south into the regime’s sectarian heartland</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">,&nbsp;</span><a href="http://al-akhbar.com/node/231746"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">massacring Alawite villagers</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">&nbsp;and&nbsp;</span><a href="http://rozana.fm/ar/node/12288"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">featuring their children in hostage videos.</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Revolutionary Idlib<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Within Idlib, the extent of who was in control from this point onward was never seriously in question: it has been ruled by al-Qaeda’s Syria affiliate in alliance with Ahrar al-Sham. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Militarily the FSA and other armed factions acted </span><a href="https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/658649059436027904"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">as mere auxiliaries</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> of their superiors, wherein Nusra </span><a href="https://harpers.org/archive/2016/01/a-special-relationship/4/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">allowed vetted militias to appear as though they were independent</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> so that the influx of CIA-distributed arms and supplies was maintained. Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, Research Fellow at the Middle East Forum, </span><a href="http://www.aymennjawad.org/20137/syria-assessing-the-cia-program"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">says</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> it is arguable that “insofar as some FSA groups have been allowed to exist in the northwest, it is only to ensure the continuation of an aid and arms flow from which Jabhat al-Nusra and its successors have almost certainly taken a slice.” According to </span><a href="http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/end-us-support-syrian-rebels-sounds-death-knell-attempt-roll-back-iran-russia-syria-joshua-landis/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Joshua Landis</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">, a highly respected academic specializing in Syria, “the radical militias prey on the weaker ones. They extort arms and money from the CIA-supported factions.” <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">This relationship, of course, was known to Washington, but support was maintained due to the battlefield success of the al-Qaeda groups. Recently the Trump administration </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/world/middleeast/cia-arming-syrian-rebels.html"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">officially ended that support</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">, though analysts report that the “moderates” </span><a href="https://www.irinnews.org/analysis/2017/08/09/black-flags-over-idlib-jihadi-power-grab-northwestern-syria"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">have been given a six month “grace period”</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> to find other sources of support before the operations rooms supplying them are completely dismantled.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Nusra and its close affiliates, militarily dominant over the other factions, began constructing their vision of a future Idlib.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Writing for the Washington Institute, </span><a href="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/how-to-prevent-al-qaeda-from-seizing-a-safe-zone-in-northwestern-syria"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">researcher Fabrice Balanche explains</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> that Nusra “has a consistent ideology and clear political project for Syria… JN [Jabhat al-Nusra] leader Abu Muhammad al-Julani clearly stated his intention to create an Islamic emirate in northwestern Syria.” <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">It is not surprising then that “the group has used brutal methods similar to those of IS,” the only distinguishable difference being that Nusra’s are not so overtly advertised. Meanwhile, non-Sunni’s and religious minorities were either massacred, forced to convert (and then </span><a href="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/how-to-prevent-al-qaeda-from-seizing-a-safe-zone-in-northwestern-syria"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">sometimes still massacred</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">), or were lucky enough to have fled and became refugees. Jihadi militants patrol the streets, routinely arresting civil-society activists and others, “many of whom disappear.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">One of the more fortunate of these activists was able to document </span><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/letter-from-rebel-controlled-idlib-syria/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">a first-hand account of life under Nusra-ruled Idlib</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">, published then by <i>The Nation</i>. “Masked, armed men roam the town. Whole streets are blocked off to protect the leaders of the Islamist militia that rules here,” they write.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Idlib city, once “known for its mosaic of different religions and its tolerance,” now looks very different. Nusra “created an entire apparatus to impose Sharia law,” and “Sharia courts remain the only form of justice." The people simply saw no choice but to accept the rules of al-Qaeda. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">“When Nusra took control here in March 2015, Idlib entered a dark tunnel of deprivation. Public education deteriorated, the university was closed, and public debate was stifled.” They note that the situation had improved since then (certainly in part due to the influx of Western aid), but still the people “feel suffocated by their masks, their guns, and their arrogant manner.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">On the subject of governance and civil-society organizations, they are described as essentially a sham, nobody having any real doubts about who holds power. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">“Local government is a facade for the Islamists. There is a governor, a mayor, and a Shura, or municipal council, but the supreme body is the Committee of the Fatah Army, which has no contact with residents. It carries out military planning, staffs the front lines, and organizes the fighters. It directs a body called “The Executive Force,” which carries out raids, searches for sleeper cells of the Assad regime or the Islamic State, and generally functions as the all-powerful intelligence agency we are familiar with from the Assad regime.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Proponents of the humanitarian programs </span><a href="https://tcf.org/content/report/keeping-lights-rebel-idlib/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">argue</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> that “Islamist and jihadist armed groups hold power at the local level... Yet ultimate decision-making power has typically sat with donor organizations outside the country.” Yet “holding power at the local level” is realistically only a euphemism for a society where terrorist-factions exercise a monopoly on the use of force, arbitrate </span><a href="https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/864402828084871168"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">a totalitarian police-state</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">, </span><a href="https://tcf.org/content/report/keeping-lights-rebel-idlib/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">control vital infrastructure and resources</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">, impose Sharia courts<i>, </i>and hold final decision-making power backed by the barrel of a gun.<s><o:p></o:p></s></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>The Respectable al-Qaeda<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Within this general framework, Nusra and its partners were smart enough not to be overly aggressive in their interference with the humanitarian aid arrangements. According to Syria analyst </span><a href="https://www.irinnews.org/analysis/2017/08/15/new-order-border-can-foreign-aid-get-past-syria-s-jihadis"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Aron Lund</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">, Nusra has been “willing to rule with a light touch by Syrian standards, leaving local aid and governance arrangements in place to avoid a clash with Western nations, humanitarians, and the UN system.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">A key contingent to this was the participation of Ahrar al-Sham, who functioned as a sort of go-between separating Western governments and the al-Nusra militants.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Nusra and Ahrar held a mutually complimentary relationship, enhanced even more by attempts to categorize Ahrar as a more moderate and respectable al-Qaeda-affiliated group </span><a href="http://www.mei.edu/content/at/yes-talk-syria%E2%80%99s-ahrar-al-sham"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">that the US should partner with</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">. Within this context, Western governments do not officially classify Ahrar as a terrorist organization, even though it has </span><a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/ahrar-al-sham-s-apocalyptic-vision-syria-and-beyond-455405201"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">a near-identical sectarian ideology to al-Nusra and works alongside al-Qaeda in pursuit of the establishment of an Islamic caliphate</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> in Syria. The </span><a href="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/how-to-prevent-al-qaeda-from-seizing-a-safe-zone-in-northwestern-syria"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">only</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">meaningful ways in which it differs from Nusra is that it has a less centralized management structure and has not pledged direct allegiance to al-Qaeda.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">This created a situation whereby the hard-line nature of the rulers in Idlib was sanitized, the “respectable” image of Ahrar in many ways working to balance out the more malevolent picture associated with Nusra’s presence. Opposition supporters pointed to Nusra’s numeric deficiency next to Ahrar to prove its diminutive influence over Idlib, disregarding how Ahrar had historically functioned as “</span><a href="http://www.aymennjawad.org/20137/syria-assessing-the-cia-program"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Jabhat al-Nusra’s main enabler and partner</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">,” and how, despite appearances, </span><a href="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/how-to-prevent-al-qaeda-from-seizing-a-safe-zone-in-northwestern-syria"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Nusra was able to</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> “intervene pretty much anywhere in Idlib province without much opposition from whatever groups may be officially controlling a given village or city.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Al-Tamimi writes that Ahrar’s main problem “</span><a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2017-08-10/jihad-wins-idlib"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">has always been its role as an enabler of jihadists</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">,” saying that the group had worked “to bring large numbers of foreign jihadists into the country and undermine local councils and civil society.” Even more strikingly, al-Tamimi says they “played a significant part in enabling the rise of ISIS in Syria in 2013,” their “moderate” portrayal of course only exacerbating their effectiveness in these regards.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">This is important because after the takeover of Idlib it was Ahrar that took charge of controlling the only official border crossing with Turkey, Bab-al-Hawa, through which the Western-backed humanitarian assistance is channeled. This arrangement helped to distance Western governments from an appearance of collusion with al-Qaeda’s official arm in Syria, despite the fact that all of the roads leading from the crossing </span><a href="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/how-to-prevent-al-qaeda-from-seizing-a-safe-zone-in-northwestern-syria"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">were directly controlled by Nusra</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Much like how the FSA factions maintained a superficial degree of separation from Nusra for the benefit of Western aid, so too was Ahrar able to portray an aura of “respectability” which helped mask the reality that they were not really separate from Nusra and that Western humanitarian assistance ultimately was working toward the benefit of al-Qaeda. In terse, blunt </span><a href="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/how-to-prevent-al-qaeda-from-seizing-a-safe-zone-in-northwestern-syria"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">terms</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">, “Thus far, JN [Nusra] has tolerated the work of foreign NGOs and the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs because it needs their social services to help establish its political power.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Out of Ideas<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Despite their implications these programs have enjoyed overwhelming support in the media and among intellectuals. It is generally conceded that they are helpful, moral, and needed, with reluctant admissions that they may have been of some minor benefit to extremists, a point which is usually quickly brushed aside.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">The prevalent consensus can be summed up by a recent assessment made by </span><a href="https://www.irinnews.org/analysis/2017/08/15/new-order-border-can-foreign-aid-get-past-syria-s-jihadis"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Aron Lund</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">, who concludes that the program’s results “have been mixed at best, with some support also benefiting jihadi groups. Nevertheless, political aid from the UK and other nations has helped pro-Western and democratic strands of the opposition survive inside otherwise inhospitable Islamist-run regions of northwestern Syria.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">One wonders what the response would be if it was proposed that our policy toward ISIS in Raqqa should be to send in massive amounts of aid and set up civil society and governance structures that bolster their control, but which also, fortunately, “help pro-Western and democratic strands survive” within the ISIS-run enclave. Al-Qaeda in Idlib, it must be remembered, only meaningfully differ from ISIS in the less-advertised nature of their brutality. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; text-indent: 0in;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; text-indent: 0in;">There are alternatives, of course, which are not considered. The militias and extremist factions are heavily dependent on, and thus influenceable by, their state-sponsors, which also happen to be the United States’ main regional allies. The US could use its superpower status to pressure its allies to stop assisting the armed factions and compel them to negotiate with the Syrian government and abdicate their control of the territories.&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; text-indent: 0in;">Threatening to discontinue the assistance they rely upon to administer the province could expedite this. If they refused, intelligence and coordination could be given for Russian and Syrian military action. It would not take long to defeat ill-equipped militants after state-sponsorship has dried up, as was seen </span><a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2017-08-02/end-cia-program-syria" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">with Turkish support in Aleppo</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; text-indent: 0in;">, and would certainly be much less brutal and costly to civilians than America’s siege of Mosul, for instance, which </span><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/mosul-massacre-battle-isis-iraq-city-civilian-casualties-killed-deaths-fighting-forces-islamic-state-a7848781.html" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">had been</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; text-indent: 0in;"> </span><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/west-mosul-mass-civilian-casualties-death-isis-iraq-us-coalition-aleppo-russia-a7853586.html" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">shocking</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; text-indent: 0in;"> in comparison to </span><a href="https://airwars.org/news/1000days-two-bombed-cities/" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">other recent military operations</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; text-indent: 0in;"> in the region. Priority should be given to non-violence, the cutting off of funding and assistance channels, though eventually Idlib would need to be relinquished to Syria.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">The seizure of Idlib from the Syrian state was an illegitimate act of aggression by hostile foreign powers done through dependent proxies, which utilized the support of internationally-recognized terrorist groups without whom the efforts would not have been successful. Returning it to Syrian rule is thus the correct and legitimate option. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Almost forgotten now, under </span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><a href="https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12132.doc.htm">UN Security Council Resolution 2249</a>,</span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> the US is obliged to “take all necessary measures… to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by… Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda.” And as well to “eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Syria,” of which Idlib would certainly qualify, at least according to the leader of the US-led coalition against ISIS, who called Idlib “</span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/world/middleeast/idlib-syria-displaced-militants.html?_r=0"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">.” <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">This must only be done, however, “in compliance with international law,” i.e., not through </span><a href="https://www.rt.com/op-edge/323396-unsc-isis-syria-us/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">illegal interference</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> inside Syrian territory without the permission of the Syrian government or </span><a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-expanding-u-s-military-presence-in-syria-legal/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">approval of international law</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">. The resolution did not, just to clarify, stipulate the US should coordinate assistance programs to territories under the control of al-Qaeda-official.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Protecting al-Qaeda, Again<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Questions regarding these policies have only seriously been raised recently </span><a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2017-08-10/jihad-wins-idlib"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">as infighting broke out</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> between Nusra and Ahrar. Nusra for all intents and purposes defeated Ahrar, </span><a href="https://www.irinnews.org/analysis/2017/08/09/black-flags-over-idlib-jihadi-power-grab-northwestern-syria"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">solidifying its unilateral dominance</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> over the province while taking effective control over the Bab al-Hawa crossing. This overt Nusra control has led donors </span><a href="https://www.irinnews.org/analysis/2017/08/15/new-order-border-can-foreign-aid-get-past-syria-s-jihadis"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">to rethink their operations</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">. However, after Nusra reopened the crossing </span><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKBN1AJ04Z"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">regular </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; text-decoration-line: none;">traffic</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">had </span><a href="https://tcf.org/content/report/syrian-jihadists-jeopardize-humanitarian-relief/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">continued</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> up until recently when Turkey started to </span><a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/08/hayat-tahrir-al-sham-turkey-sunnis-disband.html"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">reduce the amount of shipments</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> down to basic necessities and emergency aid, following pressure due to Nusra’s takeover.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">But the takeover does not fundamentally transform the situation from what it was before. It is in many ways only a superficial change. While donors are rightfully worried about </span><a href="http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-idlib-aid-20170816-story.html"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Nusra siphoning revenue streams</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> from their aid shipments, allowing Ahrar </span><a href="https://www.irinnews.org/analysis/2017/08/15/new-order-border-can-foreign-aid-get-past-syria-s-jihadis"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">to do the same for years</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> was equally as objectionable yet elicited no such response. Nusra very quickly took advantage of the opportunity to reinstitute some of their more hard-line Islamist decrees, like </span><a href="http://syriadirect.org/news/hardline-islamists-to-ban-smoking-the-%E2%80%98one-way-to-relieve-the-stress%E2%80%99-in-idlib-city/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">the banning</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span><a href="http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-idlib-aid-20170816-story.html"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">of tobacco products</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">, and concerns have been raised as they’ve begun to take </span><a href="https://twitter.com/aronlund/status/900124622250790912"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">a more heavy-handed approach</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> toward subordinating civilian councils and controlling administrative processes. Yet </span><a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/07/syria-idlib-militants-civil-society.html"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">this had been happening under the surface</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> for years. It should have been obvious that Nusra was just tolerating the West’s social services and that it would move on them once it felt it had become strong enough, which </span><a href="http://www.shaam.org/news/syria-news/%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%AA%D8%B4%D9%83%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%88%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%AB%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AB-%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B8%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%8A%D8%B3%D8%A8%D9%82%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%A5%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%A3%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%AE%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AA.html"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">appears might be happening now</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">. Government officials </span><a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/08/hayat-tahrir-al-sham-turkey-sunnis-disband.html"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">who are only just now</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> becoming alarmed at this had been enabling all of it while it had been developing for years.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">This exposes the deep cynicism and hypocrisy of US officials like Michael Ratney, the State Department’s top official in charge of Syria policy, who </span><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKBN1AJ04Z"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">described the situation</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> as one fundamentally altered which only now requires action. Ratney said that “everyone should know that [Nusra leader] Jolani and his gang are the ones who bear responsibility for the grave consequences that will befall Idlib,” describing their takeover as “one of the greatest tragedies” to hit Syria’s north that puts the region “in great danger,” saying the United States therefore hopes “to find channels that enable us to deliver humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people without passing through the hands of the Nusra Front and the crossings that have fallen into its hands.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">But “even before the July assault,” a recent </span><a href="http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-idlib-aid-20170816-story.html"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">LA Times article</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> reports, Nusra had already “demanded a portion of the aid entering its area.” This is not a surprising, given that </span><a href="https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/864242415649132544"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Nusra controlled the majority of roads and checkpoints</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> throughout the province. The amount of aid that had to be turned over “depends on the number of checkpoints you have to pass and what you’re carrying,” an aid worker told the Times. “Normally for food [Nusra] don’t take so much. They’re merciful. But medicines are highly taxed.” As well, </span><a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/07/syria-idlib-militants-civil-society.html"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">civil society activists</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> have been warning that Nusra “routinely seizes aid convoys and disrupts service provisions,” and that it had “tried to kidnap and kill activists.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Ahrar, Nusra’s greatest enablers, also </span><a href="https://www.irinnews.org/analysis/2017/08/15/new-order-border-can-foreign-aid-get-past-syria-s-jihadis"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">reportedly</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">were able to siphon off </span><a href="https://7al.net/2016/12/24/%25D8%25AD%25D8%25B1%25D9%2583%25D8%25A9-%25D8%25A3%25D8%25AD%25D8%25B1%25D8%25A7%25D8%25B1-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25B4%25D8%25A7%25D9%2585-%25D9%2585%25D8%25B9%25D8%25A7%25D8%25A8%25D8%25B1-%25D8%25A7%25D8%25B3%25D8%25AA%25D8%25B1%25D8%25A7%25D8%25AA%25D9%258A%25D8%25AC%25D9%258A%25D8%25A9-%25D8%25AA%25D8%25AF%25D8%25B1/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">millions</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> of </span><a href="http://www.anapress.net/ar/articles/%25D8%25AA%25D9%2582%25D8%25A7%25D8%25B1%25D9%258A%25D8%25B1-%25D9%2585%25D9%2583%25D8%25AA%25D9%2588%25D8%25A8%25D8%25A9-/25524681444819/%25D9%2585%25D8%25B9%25D8%25A8%25D8%25B1-%25D8%25A8%25D8%25A7%25D8%25A8-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D9%2587%25D9%2588%25D9%2589..-%25D9%2583%25D9%2584%25D9%2585%25D8%25A9-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25B3%25D8%25B1-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25AA%25D9%258A-%25D8%25AD%25D9%2584%25D8%25AA-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25AE%25D9%2584%25D8%25A7%25D9%2581-%25D8%25A8%25D9%258A%25D9%2586-%25D8%25A3%25D8%25AD%25D8%25B1%25D8%25A7%25D8%25B1-%25D9%2588%25D9%2587%25D9%258A%25D8%25A6%25D8%25A9-%25D8%25AA%25D8%25AD%25D8%25B1%25D9%258A%25D8%25B1-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25B4%25D8%25A7%25D9%2585-%25D9%2581%25D9%258A-%25D8%25A7%25D8%25AF%25D9%2584%25D8%25A8/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">dollars</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> of revenue from the aid cargos, from “commercial traffic and high-value goods like construction material,” during their run as enforcers of the crossing. One can only assume that the cut taken by Nusra was equally as substantial.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">This all, however, is really beside the point. The fact is that even if no revenue was being pocketed in these illegitimate ways the influx of humanitarian aid would still crucially be bolstering al-Qaeda and their allies. Its ultimate end-result is the maintenance of “the largest al-Qaeda safe haven since 9/11”, as well as the al-Qaeda members within it.<s><o:p></o:p></s></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">In a recent piece, </span><a href="https://www.irinnews.org/analysis/2017/08/15/new-order-border-can-foreign-aid-get-past-syria-s-jihadis"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Aron Lund</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">says that it is unlikely “that a Tahrir al-Sham-dominated Idlib will receive Western-funded stabilisation and governance aid indefinitely. Neither Americans nor Europeans are interested in bankrolling the civil service of a jihadi emirate, and that is increasingly what Idlib looks like to them.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Yet the province has looked like that for a long time, and Nusra <i>has</i>been dominating it; the bankrolling of a jihadi emirate is exactly what they have been doing.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">It is only now, after Nusra’s role has become so overt as to be undeniable, that questions are being raised. What this shows is not an honest and forthright concern on the part of the US government about aiding terrorist organizations, or caring whether that is objectively the truth or not, but instead only concern for the perception <i>of having been seen </i>to have done so.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">In truth, the US government </span><a href="https://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">had ample</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span><a href="https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">and detailed intelligence</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> regarding the true makeup of the insurgency in Syria going back multiple years now. They understood who was driving it and what the implications were. It was known that in order to have any chance of success at undermining the government in Damascus </span><a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/16/obamas-moderate-syrian-deception/"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">they were going to have to rely on al-Qaeda</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> and extremist shock-troops to pave the way toward battlefield success and the seizure of important cities and provinces, like Idlib. It is no wonder then that the operations rooms led by the US would instruct their FSA proxies and “encourage further cooperation with Islamists commanding frontline operations” in order to take Idlib.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">The US and its allies gave crucial intelligence, organizational, and material support to an insurgent opposition led by al-Qaeda-aligned extremist groups in order to wrest control of Idlib away from Damascus. The byproduct of such a strategy was always going to be the empowerment of those extremist groups who would of course come to hold ultimate military control of the province afterwards, no matter<span style="color: red;"> </span>how much influence is taken away from them by outside NGOs administering social goods and services. The empowerment of al-Qaeda groups to the level of military and security supremacy over an entire Syrian province was a foregone conclusion given this set up. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Yet after the fact the continued preservation of these forces through Western-funded social services subsidization, as opposed to a policy of actual counterterrorism, only goes to show the level at which the US state is willing to empower the forces of terrorism in order to achieve imperialistic geopolitical agendas. The level at which these actions are tolerated and/or given ideological cover by the media and intellectual classes only exemplifies how far these have devolved into functional propaganda for state and corporate interests.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst"></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">The fact that the US has been helping to maintain the largest contemporary safe haven for al-Qaeda, the organization claiming responsibility for the 9/11 terror atrocity, should have been front page news across the country and the topic of an extensive debate. Instead, experts and important agenda-setting journals sanitize the public from these unfortunate circumstances, and people are therefore spared from having to look in the mirror and confront such ugly realities.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">---</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , serif; font-size: 11.0pt;">Steven Chovanec is an independent journalist and analyst based in Chicago, Illinois. He has a bachelor’s degree in International Studies and Sociology from Roosevelt University, and has written for numerous outlets such as The Hill, TeleSur, Mint Press News, Consortium News, and others. Follow him on Twitter @stevechovanec</span></i></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-20442498420623322022017-05-18T12:52:00.000-07:002017-05-18T12:52:18.702-07:00Trump Escalates Syrian Proxy War<div style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Back in February, it was&nbsp;<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebels-idUSKBN1601BD" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;">quietly reported</a>&nbsp;that the CIA had discontinued its support program to rebels in Syria. A month later, a knowledgeable source from the region disclosed to me that the Trump administration and the Saudi defense minister, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, had agreed during their meetings in mid-March for the Gulf states to re-open supply channels to their rebel proxies.</span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="wp-caption alignright" id="attachment_22978" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(226, 226, 226); box-sizing: border-box; float: right; margin: 5px 0px 20px 20px; max-width: 100%; padding: 10px 10px 5px; text-align: center; width: 310px; word-wrap: break-word;"><a class="image-anchor" href="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-D-SV709-033.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-22978" data-lazy-loaded="true" height="200" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-D-SV709-033-300x200.jpg" srcset="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-D-SV709-033-300x200.jpg 300w, https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-D-SV709-033-768x512.jpg 768w, https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-D-SV709-033-1028x686.jpg 1028w, https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-D-SV709-033-160x107.jpg 160w, https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-D-SV709-033.jpg 1088w" style="border: 0px none; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; height: auto; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;" width="300" /></span></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px 4px 5px; word-wrap: break-word;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Defense Secretary Jim Mattis welcomes Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman to the Pentagon, March 16, 2017. (DoD photo by Sgt. Amber I. Smith)</span></div></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This was done, the source said, to keep the Syrian government’s army and its allied Russian air force occupied so that the U.S. and its Kurdish allies could continue dividing northern Syria, establishing a zone-of-influence throughout the lands they recapture from the Islamic State.</span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Concurrent with this was a similar effort in the southeast, where U.S. and Jordanian backed forces have been battling ISIS while attempting to establish control over the border with Iraq. The strategy was to use the fight against ISIS&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/will-america-partition-syria/" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;">as a pretext</a>&nbsp;for establishing&nbsp;<a href="http://undergroundreports.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-purpose-of-isis-pt-5.html" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;">a de-facto occupation</a>&nbsp;of Syrian territory, where in the Kurdish-held regions the U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/will-america-partition-syria/" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;">has already established</a>&nbsp;multiple military bases and airfields.<br /><br /><a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/18/trump-escalates-syrian-proxy-war/">Continue reading...</a></span></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-18597173528879369222017-05-16T14:07:00.000-07:002017-05-16T14:12:39.696-07:00The Trump Regime & U-Turns on Syria<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst"><i>Confusion has been raised over the Trump administration’s apparent U-turns on Syria. In April, the official position was that Assad was a “political reality” that had to be dealt with, yet only weeks later officials were calling for him to step down. Now Trump <a href="https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2017/04/12/wsj-trump-interview-excerpts-china-north-korea-ex-im-bank-obamacare-bannon/">is again</a> stating that the US is not insisting on Assad’s departure.<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst"><i><br /></i></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><i>The about-face seems confusing at first, but when combined with an examination of the sectors of power that the administration represents, as well as the actions that have been pursued on the ground, the reality becomes much clearer.</i><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b><i>The Trump Establishment<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Despite promises to “drain the swamp,” the Trump administration has turned out to be anything but anti-establishment. Instead, it represents one of the <a href="https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-trump-regime-was-manufactured-by-a-war-inside-the-deep-state-f9e757071c70">most wealthy, pro-corporate administrations</a> in recent history, which includes a former Goldman Sachs executive heading the Treasury and the former CEO of Exxon Mobil as Secretary of State. While not anti-establishment, it does represent an insurgency from <i>within</i> the establishment, the coming to power of a radicalized and nationalistic element of the ruling elite which had historically been sidelined by more powerful sectors.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">This faction has its roots in various business-funded right-wing movements, such as the John Birch Society and the Tea Party, which was heavily financed by the Koch brothers, who now hold extraordinary influence over Trump through <a href="https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-trump-regime-was-manufactured-by-a-war-inside-the-deep-state-f9e757071c70">their connections</a> with Mike Pompeo, the current CIA director. It is heavily centered around the manufacturing industry and Big Oil, and has historically been antagonistic towards the more globally-oriented multinationals and financial institutions which dominated the Obama administration. They are characterized as well by an “undeniable element of racial resentment,” as investigative historians <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations">have documented</a>. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Peter Dale Scott, the founder the study of “Deep State” politics, in 1996 described <a href="http://whowhatwhy.org/2017/02/06/donald-j-trump-deep-state-part-1/">this power struggle</a> within the establishment as “an enduring struggle between ‘America Firsters’ and ‘New world Order’ globalists, pitting, through nearly all of this [20<sup>th</sup>] century, the industry-oriented (e.g. the National Association of Manufacturers) against the financial-oriented (e.g. the Council on Foreign Relations), two different sources of wealth.” <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Scott further describes the division, roughly speaking, as being “between those Trilateral Commission progressives, many flourishing from the new technologies of the global Internet, who wish the state to do more than at present about problems like wealth disparity, racial injustice and global warming, and those Heritage Foundation conservatives, many from finance and oil, who want it to do even less.” Decades later this conservative faction, now better funded and organized than before, has been revived through Trump, again taking up the banner of “America First!”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The sectors of industry represented in the administration therefore are not opposed to globalization and imperialism, but instead advocate for a different formulation of it which gives preference to certain industries while also further tipping the balance in favor of US corporations and banks. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Also prominently represented is <a href="http://undergroundreports.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-purpose-of-isis-pt-5.html">the military industrial complex</a>; the nexus of powerful weapons manufacturers and defense contractors, the influence of which is exemplified through the amount of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/us/trump-shifting-authority-over-military-operations-back-to-pentagon.html?_r=1">power and discretion</a> Trump has given to the Pentagon and the Defense Secretary. Historically the more financial-sector-oriented CIA, given prominence during the Obama administration, has maintained <a href="https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military">a bitter rivalry</a> with the Big Oil-dominated Pentagon, which now has come to the fore under Trump.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The most prominent influence of Big Oil however is represented in Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was the former CEO of the Exxon Mobil. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Exxon and Tillerson have connections to the Russian government and President Putin, most prominently through <a href="http://whowhatwhy.org/2017/02/07/donald-j-trump-deep-state-part-2/#68">a major deal</a> that Exxon signed with Russia granting it access to vast resources in the Russian Arctic in return for allowing OAO Rosneft, the state-owned oil company, the opportunity to invest in Exxon’s overseas operations. A major factor influencing Trump’s conciliatory stance towards Russia therefore is the fact that the Exxon-Rosneft agreement <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/business/energy-environment/treasury-exxon-mobil-sanctions-waiver.html">was frozen</a> in 2014 when the US applied sanctions against Russia following the annexation of Crimea. Exxon estimates that the sanctions have cost them at least <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/11/rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-trump-russia-putin">a billion dollars</a>, and therefore “Tillerson has argued strenuously for the measures to be lifted” during his time as CEO.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">It is these connections and the likelihood that they would lead toward political détente with Russia that has motivated the liberal antagonism toward Trump, displayed in the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-rapid-rapprochement-plans-with-russia-fade-1490831072">concerted effort</a> to pressure him away from any policy which could be deemed conciliatory towards Russia. The FBI investigation into Trump’s campaign was never based in evidence, but rather has been used as a means to guarantee that aggressive policies towards Russia and Syria will continue to be implemented.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Within this context, it’s not hard to see why the administration’s policy in Syria had shifted away from Obama’s CIA-focused regime-change efforts towards a more militaristic approach which prioritizes fighting ISIS and political negotiations with Russia. It is also not hard to see why Trump would respond in the way that he did following the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun, which in large part was a product of domestic political pressure rather than an indication of a shift in strategy.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b><i>Divide and Rule<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">After taking office, Trump’s Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/tillerson-haley-syria-assad-turkey/">made it clear</a> that “our priority is no longer to sit and focus on getting al-Assad out,” while the White House Press Secretary <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/us/politics/trump-bashar-assad-syria.html">elaborated</a>that “with respect to al-Assad, there is a political reality that we have to accept in terms of where we are right now.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The “political reality” was the fact that the regime-change effort had failed. The US had flooded in an unprecedented amount of advanced weaponry, tipping the balance in favor of the <a href="http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/june/15/recent-syrian-rebel-gains-result-from-us-support-of-extremists/">mainly hard-line extremist</a> rebels, Russia then intervened in response and reversed the balance back in the governments favor. After the recent liberation of Aleppo, the opposition is severely weakened, on the defensive, and wholly unable to deliver regime-change to their backers.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Given this, the strategy of “Assad must go” <a href="http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Trumps-Beautiful-Syria-Airstrike-and-What-It-Means-20170411-0036.html">had shifted</a> instead to “defeating ISIS.” Within this context, the battle against ISIS served as a convenient justification <a href="http://undergroundreports.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-purpose-of-isis-pt-5.html">for occupying Syrian territory</a>, establishing de-facto zones of influence over areas re-captured from the group. These could then be utilized as leverage in future negotiations, either to pressure for concessions or for Assad’s ouster.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">This was not a new idea, and was proposed during the Obama administration. Henry Kissinger, who <a href="https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-trump-regime-was-manufactured-by-a-war-inside-the-deep-state-f9e757071c70">secretly helped formulate</a> President Bush and Obama’s national security policies, who <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/hillary-clintons-ties-to-henry-kissinger-come-back-to-haunt-her/">also advised</a> Hillary Clinton while she served as Secretary of State, is now acting as an <a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/trumps-syria-strike-inspired-dangerous-vision-cauldronising-middle-east-2138445408">unofficial advisor</a> to Trump, <a href="https://patch.com/us/white-house/president-trump-henry-kissinger-meet-oval-office">specifically</a>giving advice on the issue of Syria.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In 2015, Kissinger <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-path-out-of-the-middle-east-collapse-1445037513">proposed a plan</a> calling for the annexation of Syrian territory taken from ISIS by US-backed forces, which were then to be administered by US allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey, under the banner of fighting against terrorism. He wrote that “a choice among strategies” was for ISIS-held territories to be recaptured “either by moderate Sunni forces or outside powers,” excluding Iran and its proxies. The reconquered territories should then be “restored to the local Sunni rule that existed there before the disintegration of both Iraqi and Syrian sovereignty,” suggesting that “the sovereign states of the Arabian Peninsula, as well as Egypt and Jordan, should play a principal role in that evolution,” while Turkey as well “could contribute creatively to such a process.” <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The plan called for the partition of the Syrian state between government-held areas and those under the control of the US and its allies, which would be codified within a federal structure dividing the two zones of influence: “As the terrorist region is being dismantled and brought under nonradical political control, the future of the Syrian state should be dealt with concurrently. A federal structure could then be built between the Alawite and Sunni portions.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">It is worth noting that Kissinger just recently held <a href="https://patch.com/us/white-house/president-trump-henry-kissinger-meet-oval-office">an informal meeting</a> with Trump which centered around policy in Syria.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In any case, <a href="https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/will-america-partition-syria/">events on the ground</a> have revealed the beginning stages of such a plan already taking root under Trump, with the US establishing <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/the-roles-of-the-us-russia-turkey-iran-and-israel-in-syria-moving-towards-the-end-of-the-war/">a myriad of military bases</a> and airport infrastructure throughout the Kurdish-held regions, signifying a long-term intention of remaining.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b><i>Opportunistic War Crime<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The April 4<sup>th</sup> chemical weapons <a href="http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Trumps-Beautiful-Syria-Airstrike-and-What-It-Means-20170411-0036.html">incident</a>resulted in what appeared to be a shift in US policy. Trump <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/05/syria-chemical-gas-attack-donald-trump-nikki-haley-assad">announced</a>that his “attitude toward Syria and al-Assad has changed very much,” while Nikki Haley stated <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/nikki-haley-solution-war-assad-power-170409043218584.html">there could be no political solution</a> while Assad was still in power.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">However, when seen in hindsight, it is clear these statements did not represent an actual shift in policy, but instead were made to justify the Tomahawk attack as a one-off incident while policy thereafter would continue largely as it had before.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Trump is usually depicted as having been backed into a corner in the wake of the attack. However, far from being forced into anything, Trump and his administration seized upon the opportunity the incident presented and used it as a justification for an attack against Syrian military targets. Despite having ample evidence that Assad had not committed the crime, Trump decided to lay blame anyway and to launch an attack in “response.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Publicly the US claimed it had incontrovertible evidence that the Syrian air force had deployed chemical weapons. Privately however, the US intelligence community had determined, like it <a href="http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-failed-pretext-for-war-seymour-hersh-eliot-higgins-mit-professors-on-sarin-gas-attack/188597/">had before</a> in 2013, that the evidence available <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/08/where-was-cias-pompeo-on-syria/">did not prove Assad’s guilt</a>, and that instead it was <a href="https://investmentwatchblog.com/vet-cia-officer-ray-mcgovern-syria-bombed-a-rebel-arms-depot-filled-with-chemical-weapons-assad-didnt-intentionally-gas-his-people/">much more likely</a> that the official Russian narrative, that the Syrian air force had <a href="https://scotthorton.org/interviews/4617-philip-giraldi-says-ic-military-doubt-assad-gas-narrative/">hit a rebel weapons-depot</a> which contained chemical agents, was <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/07/trumps-wag-the-dog-moment/">closer to the truth</a>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In response to this knowledge, Trump <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/08/where-was-cias-pompeo-on-syria/">side-lined</a>his CIA-director, who briefed him on the Agency’s belief that Assad was likely not responsible, and instead allowed National Security Advisor McMaster discretion to draw up plans for an attack. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">McMaster then <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3553049/Syria-Chemical-Weapons-Report-White-House.pdf">produced a report</a> which was meant to prove Syria’s guilt, yet after analysis was shown to be <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwR2F3NFFVWDExMnc/view">a completely fraudulent document</a> that no competent analyst would ever have signed off on. Furthermore, by launching the attack before any evidence was gathered, the US consciously prevented an independent UN investigation from going forward.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The question then is why was this done? Especially when there was enough evidence for Trump to back out from doing so, similar to what Obama did in 2013 after the CIA had concluded that the evidence was not a “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/">slam dunk</a>.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The decision can largely be explained as a response to the domestic political pressure that had been building against Trump with accusations of collusions with Russia. The attack was an effective way to relieve the pressure against his administration coming from powerful sectors of the domestic political establishment. After the attack, Trump’s political opponents hailed him, forgetting all of their past grievances while proclaiming that it was that day that he <a href="http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/04/07/fareed-zakaria-trump-became-president-syria-newday.cnn">truly became President of the United States</a>. Relieved, at least temporarily, of his domestic opponents, the attack as well increased Trump’s <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/207518/trump-approval-rating-unusually-low-unusually-early.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=syndication">unprecedentedly low</a> approval ratings <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-shows-divergence-in-americans-opinion-of-us-strike-vs-syria/">by 10 percent</a>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The decision had other benefits, such as sending a message to China and North Korea, as well as <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/04/07/syria-airstrikes-tomahawk-missile-boeing-raytheon-stock/">garnering large profits</a> for Raytheon, the manufacturer of the missiles that were used, which Trump apparently has a direct financial <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-stock-portfolio-2015-7">conflict of interest</a> with, yet in terms of the Syrian conflict it did not really change much. The air base that was targeted, although it was <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/1148604/press-conference-by-secretary-mattis-and-gen-votel-in-the-pentagon-briefing-room/">announced</a>that a number of aircrafts were destroyed as a result, was up and running the next day, and while US-Russia relations were temporarily harmed, deconfliction communications and negotiations were eventually re-established not long after. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">&nbsp;<b><i>Current Strategy<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Following the chemical attack, Secretary of State Tillerson <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/04/06/tillerson-steps-underway-for-u-s-led-coalition-to-remove-assad?via=desktop&amp;source=copyurl">explained</a>the US’ approach to Syria. The focus would be on defeating ISIS, and then to use the territory regained from them as bargaining leverage in negotiations with the government. He said, “the process by which Assad would leave is something that I think requires an international community effort- both to first defeat ISIS within Syria, to stabilize the Syrian country, to avoid further civil war, and then to work collectively with our partners around the world through a political process that would lead to Assad leaving.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Similarly, after the Tomahawk strike, Defense Secretary Mattis <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/1148604/press-conference-by-secretary-mattis-and-gen-votel-in-the-pentagon-briefing-room/">explained</a>that “our military policy in Syria has not changed. Our priority remains the defeat of ISIS.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Shortly afterwards, Trump himself confirmed that the missile strike was a one-off attack, and that policy would proceed as before. <a href="https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2017/04/12/wsj-trump-interview-excerpts-china-north-korea-ex-im-bank-obamacare-bannon/">He explained</a> that Assad’s ouster was “going to happen at a certain point,” but that the US was not insisting on it now. He said that while peace was not impossible with Assad still in power, that it would be “hard to imagine.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">On the ground, the US had injected <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/world/middleeast/us-airlift-raqqa-syria.html">an unprecedented number</a> of its special forces to assist its Kurdish allies to retake the strategic Tabqa Dam from ISIS, which has recently been <a href="http://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/100520173">fully accomplished</a>. This maneuver was meant <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/washington-is-uprooting-part-of-syria-demarcating-its-new-safe-heaven/">to cut off the Syrian army</a> from advancing towards the ISIS capital of Raqqa, to draw the line of a zone of influence the US would occupy while making sure that it would be the US and its proxies who would eject ISIS from their main base of influence. This would allow Trump to present his administration as responsible for defeating ISIS, scoring a highly-coveted PR victory in the process.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In response to this, Russia, Iran, and Turkey concluded an agreement for the establishment of <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/syria-de-escalation-zones-explained-170506050208636.html">de-escalation zones</a>, areas of ceasefire covering all of the major zones of conflict between the government and the opposition save against ISIS and the Turkish-backed forces north of Aleppo.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The de-escalation zones <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/us-and-russia-compete-in-syria-on-reducing-escalation-and-safe-zones/">free up the Syrian army</a> and the Russian air force to pursue <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/the-us-russia-race-in-syria-towards-a-military-confrontation/">newly-launched offensives</a> eastward against the Islamic State to counter the US efforts. These offensives are being launched from Palmyra to capture the ISIS-stronghold of Deir Ezzor, and from Damascus towards the Iraqi border to secure the al-Tanaf border crossing. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In an effort to stifle the Syrian army’s attempts to secure its southeastern border, US and Jordanian proxies <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/the-us-russia-race-in-syria-towards-a-military-confrontation/">have been advancing</a> from Daara and Sweida in the south. These interactive maneuvers represent a race between the US and Russia to obtain as much territory as possible from the decaying Islamic State before the other is able to do so.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Syria’s offensives also represent a response to the US’ actions in Iraq. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The US <a href="http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/276961">had ordered</a> Prime Minister Abadi to begin an operation to secure the al-Tanaf border crossing from the Iraqi side, and specifically demanded that the Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) would not participate. Instead, the PMF is engaging in another operation further north near Mosul to seal the border from the Islamic State. The main goal of excluding the PMF in the al-Tanaf operation was to prevent the Syrian army from linking up with Iranian-backed forces there, which would create a land-line connection between Iran, Syria, and Lebanon from which Hezbollah could be supplied, further strengthening the “Shia Crescent” bloc which rivals US power projection in the region.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Therefore, as international correspondent Elijah J. Magnier <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/the-us-russia-race-in-syria-towards-a-military-confrontation/">reports</a>, “under the title of ‘defeating ISIS’, the multiple battles and the confrontation of forces present themselves fundamentally as a confrontation between the two superpowers [the US and Russia].” These operations “will aim to draw a line between the two superpowers in Syria, hinting in effect that the war is going to end.” Its conclusion would be marked by negotiations between the two powers over their respective zones of influence. The race towards “defeating ISIS” therefore emphasizing “that Syria will no doubt face partition.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b><i>Partition or Peace?<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">However, following the recent meeting between the Russian Foreign Minister and the US Secretary of State, and <a href="http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/05/trump-changes-gear-strategic-syria-policy-now-lies-with-tillerson-and-lavrov-by-alastair-crooke-12-m.html">a hopeful phone call</a> between Trump and Putin, there are indications that some kind of deal has been reached and that both sides are pursuing diplomacy. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The <i>Wall Street Journal</i> <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/kurd-led-force-homes-in-on-isis-bastion-with-assent-of-u-s-and-syria-alike-1494522632">reported</a>that for the first time the Syrian Foreign Minister complimented the US-backed SDF’s fight against ISIS and described their effort as legitimate. The <i>Journal</i> notes that the SDF is now “the only ground force [fighting against ISIS] with both U.S. and Syrian government approval.” In addition, Western diplomats are quoted as saying that the post-capture plan is for the SDF to hand over administration to “a local civilian council friendly to the Syrian regime” which could then “transfer control of the city back to the regime.” Russia’s Foreign Minister voiced support for this plan, so long as the local councils do not circumvent the Syrian government’s authority. An American official involved in the anti-Islamic State campaign said that the US “won’t be in Raqqa in 2020, but the regime will be there.” However, rather ambiguously, he explains this under the premise that the Syrian government has “a natural home-field advantage” and therefore will “have a way of slowly getting back in” to the city post-Islamic State.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">This appears to leave open the possibility for the US’ proxies to retain control when the time comes, if the local council decides not to “eventually transfer control of the city back to the regime” and if the regime does not succeed in “slowly getting back in.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">It seems unlikely that the US will simply hand over these territories. For starters, the Kurdish fighters who have given their lives to defeat ISIS will demand <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/opinion/once-syrian-kurds-beat-isis-dont-abandon-them-to-turkey.html">some kind of autonomy</a> for their efforts, which could be given in the other areas in exchange for handing over Raqqa. However, the Gulf states and Turkey, which have invested enormous resources trying to overthrow the government, will vehemently oppose ceding any territories, and will likely pressure for a federation process along the lines of the Kissinger plan, or to sabotage negotiations completely. As well, there remains the domestic pressure from the liberals and neocons, and that of the military which <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/hr-mcmaster-syria-regime-change-237038">has been pushing</a> instead for a US military invasion. It seems much more likely that the race to establish zones of influence will continue, and once the two sides are divided there will be negotiations for some kind of resolution, the likely result of which being the US handing its territories over to the government in return for serious concessions. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Indeed, Mattis <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/1177882/joint-press-conference-with-secretary-mattis-and-minister-frederiksen-in-copenh/">has recently commented</a> that deciding how to best “exploit [ISIS] being banished” is what “occupied an awful lot of our time” in the White House. He stresses that the “bottom line” is that “we’ve got to restore government services,” and that the Secretary of State has “hosted 68 countries that are committed to looking to the day after.” Not including, of course, the Syrian government.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><o:p><br /></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In closing, it must be noted that <a href="http://undergroundreports.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-purpose-of-isis-pt-1.html">the original motivation</a> for regime-change against Syria was primarily an effort by the ruling class in America to further extend its economic penetration into a country which has historically prevented greater access. This is why it has been US policy <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria">for almost a century</a>, since the 1940’s, to pursue regime-change in Syria. The fact is that policy in America is not determined democratically, but instead is decided by <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B">the interests of a powerful business class</a>, the owners of the major corporations and financial institutions, the top 1%, while the majority of the population is disenfranchised. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Despite the shift towards a more nationalistic ruling elite under Trump, those long-standing and institutionalized interests are unlikely to change. Although Exxon’s business interests lie in a normalization of relations with Russia, there are also <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/syria-another-pipeline-war-1882180532.html">other energy interests</a> at play, those <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2015-10-14/putins-gas-attack">seeking</a><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines">to connect</a> the world’s largest natural gas deposit directly to European markets via <a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/us-russia-gas-pipeline-war-syria-could-destabilise-putin-103505758">a pipeline</a> running through Syria. That natural gas reserve bisects both the territories of Iran and Qatar, and the tug-of-war between the US and Russia in Syria has largely been fought to determine who will be able to exploit these reserves and reap their rewards. The final tug-of-war to be fought during the resolution negotiations will likely concern the same issue.<o:p></o:p></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-69548095135042928862017-04-11T14:58:00.000-07:002017-04-11T16:08:38.996-07:00Trump's "Beautiful" Airstrike<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst"><b><i><br /></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst"><b><i>Useful Pretexts<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">With Trump’s inauguration, policy in Syria had begun to take a different direction. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">After having failed at regime-change, with the insurgency badly defeated, on the defensive, and <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/the-roles-of-the-us-russia-turkey-iran-and-israel-in-syria-moving-towards-the-end-of-the-war/">fighting amongst themselves</a>, it appeared the rebels’ sponsors had realized the futility of their efforts and started <a href="http://www.alraimedia.com/ar/article/special-reports/2017/03/15/751684/nr/nc">to discontinue</a> their support.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The Trump administration also <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebels-idUSKBN1601BD">reportedly ended</a> the CIA’s train-and-equip program. This represents a <a href="https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military">long-standing feud</a> between the Pentagon and the CIA. The Pentagon had vehemently opposed the CIA’s rebel program under grounds that it was empowering radical extremists which would eventually turn their guns towards Americans, and if successful would turn Syria into country of chaos ruled by warring factions of jihadists, similar to Libya. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">However, the sectors of power that Obama represented largely centered around the financial institutions and the intelligence apparatus, and therefore the CIA won the tug-of-war and the rebel program continued. Under Trump, the program was ended and the CIA’s control over foreign policy <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/08/where-was-cias-pompeo-on-syria/">was diminished</a>, while the generals and military officials were largely <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/us/trump-shifting-authority-over-military-operations-back-to-pentagon.html?_r=0">granted discretion</a> to conduct overseas operations with little oversight from the chief executive. The interests therefore steering foreign policy are largely those of the weapons and defense contractors, and the profit-incentives of the military industrial base as a whole.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Given this, instead of covertly funneling aid to al-Qaeda, Trump began increasing the coalitions’ bombing of the group, and adopted a different regional strategy. This increased bombing only materialized however after al-Qaeda <a href="https://airwars.org/news/shadow-american-war-syria/">had been routed on the battlefield</a>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Nevertheless, <a href="http://www.alraimedia.com/ar/article/special-reports/2017/03/27/754948/nr/syria">the strategy</a> became one of overt military occupation <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/washington-is-uprooting-part-of-syria-demarcating-its-new-safe-heaven/">and a partitioning</a> of Syrian territory. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><a href="http://undergroundreports.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-purpose-of-isis-pt-3.html">The purpose</a> of the US-led “anti-ISIS” campaign had up to this point been to project the image that the US was fighting the group while simultaneously allowing them to prosper and militarily bleed out Iran and Russia. In this way, the presence of ISIS was redirected into a useful pretext which legitimized an illegal military presence in Syria which otherwise would not have been possible. As well, the universally despised attitude toward ISIS could conveniently be transformed into a mandate for annexing and occupying Syrian territory. The strategy could shift from “Assad must go” to “defeating ISIS.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Signaling this shift, the Trump administration had <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/us/politics/trump-bashar-assad-syria.html">announced</a>that it “accepts” the “political reality… with respect to Assad,” and that “foremost among its priorities” from here on out would be “the defeat of ISIS.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Concurrent with this was an agreement reached between Trump and the Saudi king after their meeting in mid-March, where it was decided that the Gulf would re-open supply channels to their proxies and occupy Russia on the battlefield therefore allowing the US to concentrate on dividing northern Syria and establishing their occupation. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Within this environment, <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/the-roles-of-the-us-russia-turkey-iran-and-israel-in-syria-moving-towards-the-end-of-the-war/">it appeared</a> that some kind of negotiated settlement might have been able to materialize, wherein Russia would agree to the US annexation in return for some other concessions. Powerful factions within the US were vehemently opposed to this however and were determined to reverse it.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The chemical weapons incident in Khan Sheikhoun effectively accomplished that and upended all of the previous hopes for a settlement.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">After the horrendous attack, killing upwards of 70 people, procedures were underway for a thorough UN investigation to determine culpability. Without having completed that process, and <a href="https://www.channel4.com/news/syria-chemical-attack-reaction">without any evidence</a> presented, the Trump administration launched a barrage of cruise missiles and attacked a Syrian military installation which was <a href="http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-attack-people-20170407-story.html">being used to fight ISIS</a>. The timing of the attack prevented the investigation from going forward.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">This was <a href="http://www.accuracy.org/release/trump-bombing-illegal/">a clear violation</a>of international law and a blatant act of aggression against another state. According to the Nuremburg Tribunals, an unjustified act of aggression represents the “supreme international crime,” high above all the others. The pain and suffering of the victims was cynically exploited as a pretext for such an aggression, unsurprisingly to the high moral acclaim of Western officials and media personalities. The attack, hailed as a “<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/04/07/brian-williams-images-us-airstrikes-on-syria-are-beautiful.html">beautiful</a>” display of our weapons, which revealed the “<a href="http://fair.org/home/five-top-papers-run-18-opinion-pieces-praising-syria-strikes-zero-are-critical/">heart</a>” and compassion of President Trump, reportedly murdered <a href="https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/850320106785779712">half a dozen Syrian soldiers</a>, as well as <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-us-air-strike-latest-bashar-al-assad-claims-children-killed-chemical-weapons-latest-a7671946.html">four children</a>. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Who cares? It was our moral duty to punish Assad for killing children, by killing other children, albeit the justified and morally honorable way, with US bombs.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Even more egregious, the attack was almost certainly carried out by the rebels, dominated by al-Qaeda and a rabble of other sectarian extremists. Washington would have you believe that Assad, having given up all of this chemical weapons in 2013 and barely escaping a Libya-style overthrow, after now having devastated the rebels on the battlefield, securing his greatest military advantage out of the entire conflict, would on the eve of important international congregations aimed at ending the war and directly after those aggressing upon him had declared their acceptance of him staying in power, launch a militarily insignificant attack with the kind of weapons that are literally the one thing that could endanger his rule and lead to a US invasion, all to kill civilians and a relatively insignificant amount of fighters which was even lower than the amount normally killed using conventional weapons. Assad may be a brutal autocrat, but he has never displayed any signs of <a href="http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/04/peter-hitchens-our-noble-cause-dropping-bombs-on-behalf-of-al-qaeda.html">being insane</a>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The opposition, however, has everything to gain from this. Desperate, staring at defeat, a reduction in supplies, and a US administration abandoning it’s former “Assad must go” policy, the last recourse they had was for a “red-line” to be crossed which could justify a US invasion. It having been <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-turkey-idUSBRE94T0YO20130530">widely</a><a href="http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/sarin-gas-materials-sent-to-isis-from-turkey-claims-mp-eren-erdem-34286662.html">reported</a>that they, in fact, <a href="https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin">have access</a>to chemical weapons and <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188">have utilized them</a>in the past.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Not surprisingly then, the US intelligence community largely holds the Russian explanation, that Assad’s forces <a href="https://investmentwatchblog.com/vet-cia-officer-ray-mcgovern-syria-bombed-a-rebel-arms-depot-filled-with-chemical-weapons-assad-didnt-intentionally-gas-his-people/">bombed a rebel storage facility</a> containing chemical weapons, <a href="https://scotthorton.org/interviews/4617-philip-giraldi-says-ic-military-doubt-assad-gas-narrative/">to be true</a>, and the official US line to be false, <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/08/where-was-cias-pompeo-on-syria/">sources from the CIA</a> stating that it was their belief that “Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria.” <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/07/trumps-wag-the-dog-moment/">One intelligence source</a> said “the most likely scenario” was “a staged event by the rebels intended to force Trump to reverse a policy… that the U.S. government would no longer seek ‘regime change’ in Syria.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b><i>War is a Racket<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In the aftermath of the attack, it has become apparent that the entire motivation behind the Democratic Party’s antagonism towards Trump, along with the CIA, the neocons, and the rest of the liberal interventionists, had absolutely nothing to do with opposition towards Trump’s racism, xenophobia, attacks against civil rights, or even any connection with Putin, the accusations of course lacking any foundation in evidence. Instead, these were pretexts used to wage an all-out campaign of manipulation with a single goal in mind: pressuring him to continue carrying out the previous administrations’ strategy of overthrowing the Syrian government and maintaining a war-footing against Russia. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">This is why the liberal resentment was solely focused on undermining the one aspect of his platform <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/4/full_interview_noam_chomsky_on_democracy">which was actually worth pursuing</a>, cooperation with Russia and a détente of the increasingly dangerous confrontation that had been festering between the two nuclear powers. By portraying Trump as nothing more than a spy for Putin, the liberal establishment was able to guarantee that business-as-usual against Russia would be resumed, under threat that their efforts would be directed toward undermining the Presidency if it did not. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-rapid-rapprochement-plans-with-russia-fade-1490831072">Explaining the situation</a>, the <i>Wall Street Journal</i> reported that “in Washington, probes by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Congress into possible connections between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia have restricted the new administration’s ability to cut deals seen as conciliatory to the Kremlin in the near term without provoking an outcry from both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Exposing this antagonism for the opportunistic warmongering that it was, following Trump’s attack, in reality <a href="http://www.accuracy.org/release/trump-bombing-illegal/">a war-crime</a>for which Trump should be impeached and tried, all of his most forceful opponents of only a few days prior are now simply fawning in praise at their “great commander-in-chief.” The pressure has effectively been called off, though Trump will realize why that is and will remember again in the future when it is reapplied. After having found such an effective mechanism for insuring that the proper course is maintained, it will continue to be utilized.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In addition to having mitigated domestic opposition, the attack will likely remedy the problem of <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/207518/trump-approval-rating-unusually-low-unusually-early.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=syndication">Trump’s approval ratings</a>, which were below that of any comparable president. Nothing more effectively rallies a country around their leader like a war. In this sense, being a celebrity personality who’s foremost concerns are seemingly how others view him, the incident was <a href="http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/trumps-khan-sheikoun-production.html">largely orchestrated</a> around boosting the president’s national image. Trump will now be seen as the “strong” leader who attacked the evil Assad and wasn’t afraid of Russian threats, while Obama was the “weak” president who wouldn’t do the same even without Russia protecting him. It <a href="http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=31&amp;Itemid=74&amp;jumival=18841">appears</a>that such a reckless attack was largely the result of one man’s ego.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">However, it also represented the increased power and influence of the military, Trump having vowed to listen to his generals in the same way that Obama did not. When it comes to military officials, every solution resembles a nail, and are “solved” through military means such as missile strikes. As well, the power of the military industrial base to secure profit-making interests through state policy was also on display. Most notably the defense contractor Raytheon, who manufactures the missiles that were used in the attack, and thereby stands to gain when the government resupplies its arsenal. Their stock also <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/04/07/syria-airstrikes-tomahawk-missile-boeing-raytheon-stock/">instantly surged</a> following the incident, adding nearly five billion dollars to its overall market value. Even more to the point are <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-stock-portfolio-2015-7">the reports</a> which suggest that Trump <a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/abbymartin/status/850815764688887810">still holds shares in Raytheon</a>, and therefore will directly profit from this and from similar decisions in the future. <a href="https://twitter.com/DeanBaker13/status/850313896170803200">Oil stocks</a>as well have <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-price-spikes-as-us-strikes-syria-2017-4">precipitously increased</a>. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">History, it seems, is repeating itself, with Smedley Butler’s classic “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865">War is a Racket</a>” coming to mind.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The attack also is related to the Trump administrations’ strong ties with Israel and the AIPAC lobby. Shortly before the chemical incident took place, Israeli jets had interfered on the side of the Islamic State and <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-israel-idUSKBN16O0WL">targeted Syrian army positions</a>. Syria <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/syrian-missiles-fired-israeli-jets-struck-syria-050954013.html">shot at the jets</a> violating their airspace and forced them to retreat. The <a href="https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/850234317330448385">same airbase</a>that Trump attacked was the one from which the Israeli jets were targeted, Trump giving his friend Bibi <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/latest-israeli-minister-assad-attack-46616415">a gift</a> in the form of retribution.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">In a similar vein, the order was given during Trump’s dinner with the President of China, and comes with a message in mind. The message is that “my threats aren’t hollow,” and carry force behind them, referring to recent bellicose statements directed towards China if it refuses to “solve” the situation in North Korea. This, unsurprisingly, has only <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39541391?ocid=socialflow_twitter">further encouraged</a> North Korea and others to continue acquiring nuclear capabilities to deter against American aggression. This is what the North Korean’s nuclear program <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/world/asia/rex-tillerson-north-korea-nuclear.html?mtrref=undefined&amp;gwh=678BAE3F2B0974DF881D5B88EAD0947C&amp;gwt=pay">is all about</a> after all, at least according to <a href="https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Military_and_Security_Developments_Involving_the_Democratic_Peoples_Republic_of_Korea_2015.PDF">US military intelligence</a>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Nevertheless, Trump now has immense incentives to continue pursuing confrontation with Russia and Syria. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">For what it was worth though, the actual attack represents a small-scale and largely symbolic accomplishment. It did not greatly damage Syria’s military capabilities, the airbase reportedly already being back in operation. It does, however, carry with it extraordinarily dangerous and potentially unforeseeable consequences.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b><i>A Lifeline for the Jihadists<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The situation in Syria was already extremely precarious. For the first time in the modern period fighter jets of two nuclear powers were circling each other within the bounds of a single state in defense of opposing ground-forces; one false move could’ve potentially sparked a WWIII scenario. Trump’s careless actions have only further hurdled the world towards possible catastrophe, further strengthening <a href="http://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/">the opinion of the world’s population</a> that the United States is by far <a href="http://www.wingia.com/en/services/end_of_year_survey_2013/global_results/7/33/">the greatest threat to world peace</a>, with constantly-invoked official adversaries trailing far behind.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Directly after the attack, Russia severed the communication channels between itself and the US military. The agreed upon “deconfliction” precautions have been abandoned while the <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/defense/327751-russia-suspends-communication-line-with-us-meant-to-avoid-collisions-in-syria">memorandum of understanding</a> used to prevent military confrontations and air accidents <a href="http://tass.com/politics/939940">has been tabled</a>. US jets are now operating in Syria under constant threat of being targeted by the Russian air force and the Syrian army. Given this, former members of the US-led coalition have <a href="http://aranews.net/2017/04/belgium-suspends-air-operations-syria-us-strike/">suspended their involvement</a> and evacuated their aircraft, saying it is no longer safe to remain. Others are likely to follow. One false move could bring us to the brink of a cataclysmic confrontation. Wasn’t this decision just wonderful?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">On top of all this, the maneuver has greatly damaged Russia’s credibility. The US effectively called the Russian narrative a lie and exposed Putin’s “protection” of his allies to be hollow. The Russian military has been discredited and their already strained relations with Syria and Iran have only further been maligned. Unsurprisingly the Russian’s <a href="https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ar&amp;tl=en&amp;js=y&amp;prev=_t&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alraimedia.com%2Far%2Farticle%2Fspecial-reports%2F2017%2F04%2F08%2F757783%2Fnr%2Fsyria&amp;edit-text=">are furious</a>. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Importantly however, it seems likely that some kind of an agreement was reached when the US <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1144598/statement-from-pentagon-spokesman-capt-jeff-davis-on-us-strike-in-syria">notified the Russians</a> and warned them of the attack. Important military equipment and personnel were evacuated from the site. The question however is what concession Russia received in return for allowing Trump to save-face after his “red line” comments and what will be the Russian response. Already <a href="https://www.mintpressnews.com/russian-warship-steaming-toward-u-s-destroyers-off-syria-coast/226655/">a Russian warship</a> is steaming toward the Mediterranean while <a href="https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ar&amp;tl=en&amp;js=y&amp;prev=_t&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alraimedia.com%2Far%2Farticle%2Fspecial-reports%2F2017%2F04%2F08%2F757783%2Fnr%2Fsyria&amp;edit-text=">further steps</a><span class="MsoCommentReference"><span style="font-size: 8.0pt;">&nbsp;</span></span>are being taken to increase Syria’s air defenses.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The other direct consequence was the strengthening of ISIS and al-Qaeda, who unsurprisingly exploited the attack to launch their own offenses. The military installation that was hit was a main base from which <a href="http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-attack-people-20170407-story.html">attacks against ISIS</a> were carried out. It was instrumental in keeping nearby ISIS militants at bay and protected the surrounding inhabitants from ISIS attacks. Following the incident <a href="http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-attack-people-20170407-story.html">residents say</a> they now fear an assault, stating that “women and children have already started to leave Shayrat to go to Homs city. We’re not afraid of airstrikes. Our fear is the [ISIS] attack from the east.” For the residents, all these airstrikes amount to is “proof that the U.S. helps Daesh.” Perhaps this is what the <i>New York Times</i> meant when <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/opinion/after-the-airstrikes-whats-next.html">they said</a> “It was hard not to feel some sense of emotional satisfaction, and justice done, when American cruise missiles struck an airfield in Syria on Thursday.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">All of the <a href="https://twitter.com/Ali_Kourani/status/850158285432946688">most</a> <a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/ahrar-al-sham-s-apocalyptic-vision-syria-and-beyond-455405201">reactionary</a><a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/benjaminnorton/status/850794366826414080">forces</a><a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/afp/status/850180366505697280">on the ground</a> praised and welcomed the strikes, and its <a href="https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ar&amp;tl=en&amp;js=y&amp;prev=_t&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alraimedia.com%2Far%2Farticle%2Fspecial-reports%2F2017%2F04%2F08%2F757783%2Fnr%2Fsyria&amp;edit-text=">main beneficiaries</a> were ISIS and al-Qaeda. How glorious.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Furthermore, the implicit message that Trump has sent to the jihadists is that the international media and the US administration will not attempt to deliberate over evidence and demonstrate factual culpability, but instead will automatically blame Assad for any chemical weapons attacks. This effectively gives them a mechanism by which to call in US airstrikes should they ever need to improve their battlefield positions or gain the support of foreign intervention. Far from deterring dangerous weapon use, this provides <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU5taO5vRDo">an overwhelming</a> incentive for chemical weapons to continue to be deployed, especially in terms of the Gulf monarchies should they ever need to redirect Trump towards an explicit “Assad must go” policy. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><a href="https://levantreport.com/tag/saudi-arabia/">Leaked memos</a> from Saudi Arabia say that Assad must be overthrown at all costs, because if he is not then Syria’s primary goal will be “taking revenge on the countries that stood against it, with the Kingdom… coming at the top of the list,” which represents “a high degree of danger for the Kingdom.” The Saudi rulers make clear their view that the main stumbling block in the way of achieving this is the “lack of ‘desire’ and not a lack of ‘capability’… to take firm steps” on the part of the United States, and therefore they “must seek by <i>all means available</i> and <i>all possible ways</i> to overthrow the current regime in Syria.” (emphasis added)<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Isn’t it wonderful how we taught Assad a lesson?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Given all of this, the pressures leading towards war and destruction will continue, as will the strategy of occupying northern Syria while denying the Syrian government from controlling the totality of its former territories. Rebel jihadi supply lines through Turkey will continue fueling the conflict, and with it the innocent deaths, while the money and weapons from the Gulf will continue to be forthcoming in an attempt to sink Russia down into the Syrian quagmire. This course of action, based on motivations of regional dominance, will continue to be <a href="https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&amp;sl=auto&amp;tl=en&amp;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alraimedia.com%2Far%2Farticle%2Fspecial-reports%2F2017%2F04%2F07%2F757618%2Fnr%2Fsyria">the largest stumbling block towards peace</a> that will further prolong the already 6-year long conflict.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b><i>Obstacles to Peace<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Russia still has a fresh memory of the debacle in Afghanistan during the 1980s and desperately fears another repeat in Syria, especially given the newfound influence they have now been able to establish with the buildup of their military presence around the Mediterranean. The conflict in Syria provided them the opportunity to accomplish this. It is therefore <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/the-roles-of-the-us-russia-turkey-iran-and-israel-in-syria-moving-towards-the-end-of-the-war/">within their interests</a> for a quick political settlement to be reached and for a termination of the conflict, along with a cleanup of the Russian-nationals fighting in the ranks of the jihadists, and to further consolidate and exploit its newfound position as an influencer in regional Middle Eastern affairs. This comes into stark conflict with their Iranian and Syrian partners who are urging Russia to continue the offensive and reclaim the totality of Syrian territory. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Because of this, Russia would likely be willing to exert the pressure necessary to force its allies to accept a settlement which includes extraordinary concessions. For this reason too, Russia will likely acquiesce to the US-backed balkanization effort in some form in order to freeze the conflict. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">At the same time, the Americans and Europeans <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/europe-and-the-us-have-a-plan-to-divide-syria-but-not-to-halt-the-war/">desperately want to see Russia get bogged down</a> in another Afghanistan scenario, not the least of which because Russia was instrumental in preventing their regime-change efforts. It is for this reason that the US and the EU do not have a coherent plan to end the conflict, but do have <a href="https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&amp;sl=auto&amp;tl=en&amp;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alraimedia.com%2Far%2Farticle%2Fspecial-reports%2F2017%2F04%2F07%2F757618%2Fnr%2Fsyria">a strategy of partitioning Syrian territory</a> which will likely result in an all-out corporate resource-grab afterwards, allowing Western investors access to exploit the area and obtain the rebuilding contracts that will then be signed. This being paramount in their calculations, the reactionary al-Qaeda forces on the ground again become a useful asset rather than an enemy to be destroyed, while the ISIS pretext justifies the annexations.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Following the completion of partition, the strategy will shift directly back toward regime-change, only with newly acquired territories and levers of pressure from which to exert such demands. The eventual goal is a complete eviction of Russia from the Mediterranean and from its ability to frustrate Western ambitions for regional hegemony.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Fueling this is the imbedded and institutional nature of an American policy of regime change toward all non-compliant states, euphemistically referred to as the “axis of evil.” These policies are not at all related to the changing personalities which happen to occupy the White House from time to time. This is because government policy is representative of the very narrow class interests of those who dominate the socio-economic hierarchy. That is, the dominant plutocracy made up of the individuals and interests who own the private economy and enjoy control over vast consolidations of wealth and resources. It is from this dominant business-class that the top level positions within the executive are filled, and from these interests that policy is crafted and legislated. This has been shown in <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B">prominent political science studies</a> which explain “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.” Or, in other words, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy,” while decision-making is confined almost exclusively to the top 1%.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">This is why <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Roots-American-Foreign-Policy-Analysis/dp/0807002631">prominent political analysts</a> have <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=CSFCAAAAIAAJ&amp;dq=the+roots+of+american+foreign+policy&amp;focus=searchwithinvolume&amp;q=business+serves+as+the+fount+of+critical+assumptions">concluded</a>since the 1950s that “at every level of the administration of the American state, domestically and internationally, business serves as the fount of critical assumptions or goals and strategically placed personnel.” Policy therefore stemming from “the most powerful class interests” which inform the “nature and objectives of American power at home and abroad.” It is the “ideology <i>and</i> the interest and material power of the physical resources of the ruling class of American capitalism” which determine courses of action, “the latter [the material power of their physical resources] being sufficient should consensus break down.” This “economic ruling elite” being “the final arbiter and beneficiary of the existing structure of American… politics and of United States power in the world.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">This the reason why US policy towards Syria has remained consistent for nearly a century. The CIA has been attempting, since its inception, to overthrow the Syrian government <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria">since the middle of the 20<sup>th</sup> century</a>, through countless administrations and countless fluctuations between Democrats and Republicans. The core policy remains the same, so it should be no wonder that the current incumbent would opportunistically seize upon an opportunity to attack the Syrian state. These actions cannot solely be laid at the feat of the liberals nor domestic political concerns.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Instead, the overthrow of non-compliant regimes is a staple of US policy because doing so secures the economic and material interests of the dominant ruling class within America. It is within their interests for governments to allow their economies to be penetrated by Western corporations seeking to exploit their markets, and to denationalize state assets and coveted resources for the exploitation of foreign investors. Furthermore, these interests are further secured through regional support for US military aggression and occupations. This is why so much emphasis was put upon <a href="http://www.khaleejtimes.com/article/20080708/ARTICLE/307089943/1098">securing control over Iraqi oil</a> and the establishment of US military bases in Iraq, and why similar aggressions are not pursued against client states which comply with these developments. Syria, although it began to allow Western economic penetration, has on the whole frustrated attempts for greater access. In addition, Syria has opposed US military aggression in the region, such as <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/01/assad-henchman-here-s-how-we-built-isis.html">their attempts</a><!--[if !supportNestedAnchors]--><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null"></a><!--[endif]--> to undermine the occupation of Iraq. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b><i>The Logic of Imperialism<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The other major issue is <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/syria-another-pipeline-war-1882180532.html">the pipeline war</a> between <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines">the US and Russia</a> over <a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/us-russia-gas-pipeline-war-syria-could-destabilise-putin-103505758">the natural gas field</a> <a href="https://www.startpage.com/do/search?query=Putin%E2%80%99s+Gas+Attack%3A+Is+Russia+Just+in+Syria+for+the+Pipelines%3F&amp;cat=web&amp;pl=chrome&amp;language=english">which bisects</a> Iranian and Qatari territory, the largest in the world. Qatar’s attempts to connect their holdings directly to European markets was denied by Assad, while an Iranian and Russian-backed pipeline was put into motion. It is only after the ball began rolling on the Russian-Iranian-Syria pipeline that the insurgency was fostered against Assad.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">This is why Trump has used this opportunity to further aggress upon the Syrian state, now writing up <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/327887-us-preparing-new-sanctions-against-syria">a new batch of sanctions</a> to apply under the pretext of chemical weapons use. The sanctions, after all, are an economic siege against the entirety of the country, and are fueling much of the suffering and the fleeing of refugees. These new ones will continue a tactic of brutalization of the civilian population with little effect against the government, the strategy being to force massive economic suffering as a means to pressure the current regime. This is also why the US again <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/politics/nikki-haley-syria-interview-sotu-cnntv/">is demanding Assad’s ouster</a>, saying “There's not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><o:p><br /></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">As self-righteous pundits, officials, and intellectuals who should know better wax poetically and bask in their own self-righteousness over how moral and justified this immoral act of aggression was, it is not hard to see why the world considers the US the leading threat to peace and a leading terrorist rogue state.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The US and its clients, <a href="http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/yemen/yemen-government-backs-us-missile-strikes-in-syria-1.2007935">who have</a> <a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/benjaminnorton/status/850794366826414080">all hailed</a> Trump’s belligerent attacks on moralistic grounds, are the only states rampaging through the region attacking countries at will while destroying any that stand in their way. The US now, and the British before them, have consistently opposed and overthrown any truly progressive, democratic, and secular movement or government that has emerged in the Middle East while at the same time propping up the forces of extremist-Islam and fueling the spread of violent jihadism throughout the region. This is because the US has, since the 1950s, pursued an agenda of global domination and has insisted on securing its ambitions through <a href="https://williamblum.org/intervention-map">tyranny and oppression</a>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Imagine, for an instance, that Syria manufactured a false claim and said the US military used chemical weapons against them, and used that pretext to launch a cruise missile assault on an American base in American territory, murdering the innocent civilians living nearby, including four children. Now imagine that on top of that, the officials and intellectuals from Syria didn’t apologize, but instead hailed the intolerable injustice as being a display of “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/opinion/after-the-airstrikes-whats-next.html">justice done</a>,” something that was “<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/04/07/brian-williams-images-us-airstrikes-on-syria-are-beautiful.html">beautiful</a>,” which elicited a “sense of emotional satisfaction” and was righteous and good, showing how <a href="http://fair.org/home/five-top-papers-run-18-opinion-pieces-praising-syria-strikes-zero-are-critical/">heartfelt and compassionate</a> they are.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">How malicious and sociopathic would we view those officials?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">Yet we all carry on, blind and drunk off the desire to dominate and control.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><o:p><br /></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">The logic of imperialism, is truly <a href="https://chomsky.info/20141214/">wondrous to behold</a>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-indent: 0in;"><br /></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-49371398888285009912017-04-11T14:19:00.002-07:002017-04-11T14:35:49.551-07:00The Purpose of ISIS, Pt. 5<div class="MsoNormal"><i>This is the final of a 5 part report which attempts to detail a history of the rise of ISIS and to explain its true relations to the actors involved in the war theatre. It attempts to show how and why ISIS has been exploited while also answering the question: &nbsp;what has been the group’s ultimate purpose in relation to the dominant powers manipulating the proxy conflict. Given what is known historically, it hopes to shed light on what the motivations are behind the current actions against the group, as well as, what purpose they serve.<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>The Strategic Asset, Then and Now<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">About a year after the fall of Mosul, ISIS as well overtook the Iraqi city of Ramadi. Afterwards, US intelligence and military officials revealed to <i>Bloomberg</i> that the US had “significant intelligence” about the pending attacking. For the US military, it was an “open secret” at the time, which “surprised no one.” The intelligence community was able to obtain “good warning” that ISIS was planning “a new and bolder offensive in Ramadi” because they had identified “the convoys of heavy artillery, vehicle bombs and reinforcements through overhead imagery and eavesdropping on chatter from local Islamic State commanders.” <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Indeed, departing from ISIS’ base in Raqqa, these convoys consisted of long columns of vehicles and had travelled a full five-hundred and fifty kilometers through open desert in broad daylight to reach Ramadi. Despite this, the US coalition did not act, instead they “watched Islamic State fighters, vehicles and heavy equipment gather on the outskirts of Ramadi before the group retook the city.” The US “did not order airstrikes against the convoy before the battle started”, but instead “left the fighting to Iraqi troops, who ultimately abandoned their positions.”<sup>1</sup> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Commenting on this, former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke noted that “the images of long columns of ISIS Toyota Land Cruisers, black pennants waving in the wind, making their way from Syria all the way – along empty desert main roads – to Ramadi with not an American aircraft in evidence, certainly needs some explaining.” He continues by pointing out that “there cannot be an easier target imagined than an identified column of vehicles, driving an arterial road, in the middle of a desert.”<sup>2</sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Even more troubling, it seems that the US had taken further precautions to ensure that the Iraqi forces would not be able to repel the ISIS attack. In the same <i>Bloomberg</i> report, US officials revealed that Iraqi government forces in Ramadi were not being properly resupplied, stating that ever since the US-led campaign began they had been forced to acquire weapons and ammunition on the black market since supplies were simply not reaching them.<sup>3</sup> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">After the fall of the city to ISIS, Iraq was thereafter dependent on the US military to help repel the invading forces, which appears to parallel closely with the aforementioned strategy envisioned by think-tank analysts whereby “moderate or even radical Sunnis” could be useful in order to pressure and “put fear” into the government, and thereby help “encourage [them] to cooperate with the US.”<sup>4</sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Explaining further how such situations may be used for the political benefit of outside powers, University of Cincinnati’s Abraham Miller explains that “as long as there is chaos” like that produced by the Islamic State, then “there is a need for foreign intervention” such as the American intervention in Iraq. Such interventions are important opportunities because “with chaos and bloodshed come arm sales and political and economic influence.”<sup>5</sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">This seems to track quite closely as well to a strategy envisioned for Iraq during the Bush administration. Co-authored by then Vice President Cheney and other influential neoconservatives, the strategy put particular importance on Washington being able “to justify its long-term and heavy military presence in the region”, which could be accomplished through the Iraqi state being weak and unable to defend itself, and therefore the US military would ostensibly be “necessary for the defense of a young new state asking for US protection.” Yet the real reason for the US presence would be “to secure the stability of oil markets and supplies,” which “in turn would help the United States gain direct control of Iraqi oil and replace Saudi oil in case of conflict with Riyadh.”<sup>6</sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Today much of this has been achieved, Iraq having been forced to ask the US for protection while the chaos and bloodshed justify further arms sales and help to expand political and economic influence over the country. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">After the replacement of Maliki, Iraq has largely been secured by the US and rid of a lot of its former Iranian influences.<sup>7</sup>Given this, the presence of ISIS now serves as a useful means to further demonstrate Iraq’s dependence on the US military, a dependence the US intends to nurture. In a telling admission, Secretary of State Tillerson confirmed that recent troop deployments would remain in the country after ISIS is defeated, in order to “help clear mines and establish stability.”<sup>8</sup> As well, with the elimination of ISIS, Iran would be closed off from the opportunity of expanding its influence through its sponsoring of various proxy militias throughout the country.<sup>9</sup> <s><o:p></o:p></s></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">The symbolic victory of a US-backed ISIS defeat would further legitimize the US presence in Iraq and help convey a positive image of the US’ role in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the very recent threat that the Islamic State posed could be invoked in the future if the government in Baghdad ever flirted with closer Iranian ties or strayed too far from the US-designated course. With Trump’s increasingly Pentagon-influenced administration, the current fight against the Islamic State will also be useful in justifying increased arms sales both to the Iraqi forces and for the US jets flying overhead. In this sense, it appears “the political and military costs of defeating” ISIS would outweigh its previous functions.<sup>10</sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">In Syria, however, the situation is different. In a revealing interview, the former British Prime Minister argued for Britain to join the US campaign against ISIS on the basis that it was a “direct threat to Britain”, and that he was “not prepared to subcontract the protection of British streets from terrorism to other countries’ air forces.” Analysts commented that such a remark was indicative of a policy among the Western administrations which would not allow other states genuinely allied to the embattled Syrian government to claim victory over ISIS for themselves.<sup>11</sup> In this sense, while blocking others from defeating the group the universally accepted consensus of the need to eradicate the Islamic State could be transformed into an effective mandate to occupy and annex Syrian lands. With the attempt to overthrow the government having failed, strategy could shift from support to the opposition towards “defeating ISIS.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">Signaling the adoption of such a strategy, the Trump administration announced that it “accepts” the “political reality… with respect to Assad”, and that “foremost among its priorities” from here on out would be “the defeat of ISIS.”<sup>12<o:p></o:p></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">In many ways this realization was already understood in the final months of the Obama administration, exemplified by the withdrawal of their demand that “Assad must go” and support instead of a negotiated settlement.<sup>13</sup>The plan, however, is not to fully abandon regime-change, but to focus on “ISIS” and then after occupation continue to exert pressure and push for Assad’s ouster.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>The Partition of Syria</i></b><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The change in strategy has further become apparent with indications that the CIA has discontinued its covert support for the opposition.<sup>14</sup>This represents the failure of the regime-change effort while as well being indicative of the change in political leadership within the White House. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The transition from Obama to Trump represents a long-standing rivalry between the CIA and the Pentagon. During the Obama administration, the Pentagon forcefully opposed the CIA rebel program on the very realistic grounds that it was empowering Islamist extremists, even going so far as to leak military intelligence in order to subvert the operations’ success.<sup>15</sup> However, the sectors of power that Obama represented largely centered around the CIA and NSA intelligence apparatus and therefore the program had continued. The Trump administration however largely represents the interests of weapons manufacturers, defense contractors, and the military industrial complex as a whole and is centered around the political leadership of the military and the Pentagon. The public displays of liberal antagonism to Trump are largely a reflection of this internal power-struggle, as are the administration’s efforts to consolidate control over the intelligence agencies and to increase the discretionary powers of the military establishment. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Under Trump the military’s influence over foreign policy has vastly increased, the Defense Secretary being granted leave to authorize deployments and operations with little oversight from the chief executive.<sup>16</sup>The result of this has been an increase in the power of the vested interests behind the military industrial base and their ability to steer the course and direction of US foreign policy strategy. The main consequence being the specific character that US imperialism will take, a shift from secretive drone strikes, covert regime-change operations, and the financing of extremist elements towards a strategy of direct military deployment and the securing of foreign-policy interests through overt military operations.<sup>17</sup> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Thus, the CIA rebel-sponsoring program under Trump has ceased while the footprint of the US military in Syria has grown,<sup>18</sup>and the beginning indications of a military occupation have started to become visible. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The <i>Wall Street Journal</i> recently reported that “there is growing receptiveness among US and international officials to the idea of setting up unofficial Syria safe zones.” The nature of these “safe-zones” was described by the French Foreign Minister, who hypothesized “they would cover areas retaken from the Islamic State and help people return to their homes.” However, the plan is for US troops to stay in the region long after ISIS is defeated, US Central Command Army General Joseph Votel announcing that US forces will be “required” to stabilize the region and assist “America’s allies” on the ground for the foreseeable future. The zones would therefore consist of Syrian lands directly under the security control of the US military and their partners on the ground, Secretary of State Tillerson describing them as “interim zones of stability” which would “allow refugees to return home”, wherein the coalition would “help to restore water and electricity” and other vital infrastructure, authority over which is necessary for political control.<sup>19 </sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">In many ways, this strategy is not new, and was considered as a “plan B” of sorts by planners during the Obama administration. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Exemplifying this mindset, Henry Kissinger had earlier put forward proposals which justified the annexation of Syrian lands under the pretext of defeating ISIS. “In a choice among strategies”, he writes, “it is preferable for ISIS-held territory to be reconquered either by moderate Sunni forces or outside powers than by Iranian jihadists or imperial forces.” The strategy called for the post-Islamic State areas to be put under the direct political control of US allies, who, of course, have been heavily invested in the overthrow of the Syrian state: “The reconquered territories should be restored to the local Sunni rule that existed there before the disintegration of both Iraqi and Syrian sovereignty. The sovereign states of the Arabian Peninsula, as well as Egypt and Jordan, should play a principal role in that evolution.” Turkey, as well, “could contribute creatively to such a process.” <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The plan then called for a partition of Syria between these newly annexed entities and the areas still under Syrian government control: “As the terrorist region is being dismantled and brought under nonradical political control, the future of the Syrian state should be dealt with concurrently. A federal structure could then be built between the Alawite and Sunni portions.”<sup>20<o:p></o:p></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">In many ways, recent US maneuvers have shown that this is, in fact, the course of action being pursued. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The US military has long been setting up key infrastructure such as numerous military bases and an airport within the semi-autonomous Kurdish regions in Syria where hundreds of its special forces maintain a military presence; an indication of long-term plans to remain and establish autonomous regions within the country which the Syrian government would be prevented from reclaiming.<sup>21</sup> As well, the US has recently conducted an unprecedented military operation involving hundreds of US soldiers aimed at reclaiming the Tabqa dam from the Islamic State, which is described by the <i>New York Times</i> as an vitally “important power source for north Syria.” The operation is understood to be a precursor to the launching of an offensive against ISIS’ de-facto capital of Raqqa in a final push to eliminate the group.<sup>22</sup> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">The main consequence of the&nbsp; maneuver however has been to block the advance of the Syrian army and Russian air force, preventing them from moving onwards toward Raqqa and claiming victory over ISIS for themselves, harkening back to the strategy invoked by the West of being unwilling to “subcontract the protection of [its] streets from terrorism to other countries’ air forces.”<sup>23</sup>&nbsp;International correspondent Elijah J. Magnier explains this operation represents the drawing of a line “of the new ‘safe zone’ that will be occupied by the US forces and will therefore be their future ‘safe haven’, thus beginning the partition of the north of Syria.”<sup>24</sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">This paves the way for the split-up of the country into three separate zones of influence, a pro-US Kurdish northeast, a Syrian government controlled west and south, and likely a Turkish-occupied northwest.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The conquest of ISIS’ main capital by US-backed forces would allow Trump to gain a useful “symbolic victory” that will increase his domestic political standing, especially after justifying much of his administrations military build-up under the pretext of fighting extremist groups.<sup>25</sup>The increased US military involvement will legitimize further arms sales for domestic weapons industries. As well, the strategy could see the US pushing ISIS towards cities controlled by the Syrian army, thereby keeping the pressure on Russia and Iran as they go about the partition of the country. Most importantly, the US will likely be able to ensure that any pipeline project aimed at directly connecting Iranian gas to European markets would be stymied and unable to pass through Syrian lands, especially those under their control, thus protecting such markets for Western corporations.<sup>26<o:p></o:p></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">All of this ensures that Syria remains a weakened state which the West will be able to exert significant influence over. After ISIS is dealt with and balkanization is accomplished the subsequent land and leverage gained can be utilized to continue the process of removing Assad from power. According to Tillerson, “The process by which Assad would leave is something that I think requires an international community effort—both to first defeat ISIS within Syria, to stabilize the Syrian country, to avoid further civil war, and then to work collectively with our partners around the world through a political process that would lead to Assad leaving.”<sup>27<o:p></o:p></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In this way, the threat of ISIS continues to serve its intended purpose of securing Western corporate and investor control over important consumer markets and valuable Middle Eastern energy resources. ISIS therefore representing the “gift that keeps on giving”,<sup>28</sup> which continues to proliferate the interests of the Western powers and their strategic attempts for hegemony over the Middle East. <o:p></o:p><br /><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Those killed in the process outweighed by the “function” represented in the “political structure” of the Islamic State, as professor Abraham Miller describes, whose proliferation of “chaos is perceived to serve a multiplicity of purposes within and outside the region”,<sup>29 </sup>as can be seen in the recent maneuvers ostensibly aimed at the disintegration of the group. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Notes:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->1.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Bloomberg</i>, “U.S. Saw Islamic State Coming, Let It Take Ramadi”, 28 May 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->2.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Huffington Post</i>, “If Syria and Iraq Become Fractured, So Too Will Tripoli and North Lebanon”, 1 June 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->3.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Bloomberg</i>, “U.S. Saw Islamic State Coming, Let It Take Ramadi”, 28 May 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->4.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 367. Citing The New Yorker, “The Redirection”, 5 March 2007. Remarks made by Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->5.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 444. Citing<i> Daily Caller</i>, “Understanding The Function Of The Islamic State”, 19 June 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->6.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Guardian</i>, “Iraq blowback: Isis rise manufactured by insatiable oil addiction”, 6 June 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->7.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Al Rai Media Group (Arabic), “USA pushes Iran out of Iraq and leaves Syria to Russia”, 19 January 2016. Translated at <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/usa-pushes-iran-out-of-iraq-and-leaves-syria-to-russia/">https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/usa-pushes-iran-out-of-iraq-and-leaves-syria-to-russia/</a>. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->8.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Yahoo! News</i>, “Allies vow to destroy IS as attacks overshadow talks”, 23 March 2017.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->9.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->“The United States came back to Mesopotamia from the same wide door that was asked to withdraw by the Vice-President and former Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that favoured the Iranian influence. ISIS occupation of part of the country and the slow American reaction after July 2014 allowed Iran to increase and expand its influence through arming directly secondary Iraqi groups, and extend its support to Baghdad and Erbil. But the support was not enough to stop the ISIS expansion. Iran soon realised its inability to reach a Shia – Shia, Shia – Sunni and Shia – Kurdish unity or reconciliation. It has failed to stop the tiresome requests for an American intervention in Iraq by the Iraqi administration.” Al Rai Media Group (Arabic), “USA pushes Iran out of Iraq and leaves Syria to Russia”, 19 January 2016. Translated at <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/usa-pushes-iran-out-of-iraq-and-leaves-syria-to-russia/">https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/usa-pushes-iran-out-of-iraq-and-leaves-syria-to-russia/</a>. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->10.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 444. Citing<i> Daily Caller</i>, “Understanding The Function Of The Islamic State”, 19 June 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->11.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 428. Citing BBC Online, “MPs support UK air strikes against IS in Iraq”, 26 September 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->12.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>New York Times</i>, “White House Accepts ‘Political Reality’ of Assad’s Grip on Power in Syria”, 31 March 2017.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->13.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, pp. 511-14.; Moon of Alabama, “Syria - Trump Administration Will Continue Obama Policy”, 31 March 2017.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->14.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Reuters, “<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebels-idUSKBN1601BD">Exclusive: CIA-backed aid for Syrian rebels frozen after Islamist attack – sources</a>”, 21 February 2017.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->15.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>London Review of Books</i>, “<a href="https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military">Military to Military</a>”, 7 January 2016.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->16.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>New York Times</i>, “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/us/trump-shifting-authority-over-military-operations-back-to-pentagon.html?_r=0">Trump Shifting Authority Over Military Operations Back to Pentagon</a>”, 19 March 2017.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->17.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>New York Times</i>, “U.S. War Footprint Grows in Middle East, With No Endgame in Sight”, 29 March 2017.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->18.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>New York Times</i>, “U.S. Is Sending 400 More Troops to Syria”, 9 March 2017.; Army Times, “The U.S. is sending 2,500 troops to Kuwait, ready to step up the fight in Syria and Iraq”, 9 March 2017.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->19.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Wall Street Journal</i>, “U.S. Weighs ‘Zones of Stability’ As Part of Anti-Islamic State Effort”, 22 March 2017.; Army Times, “The U.S. is sending 2,500 troops to Kuwait, ready to step up the fight in Syria and Iraq”, 9 March 2017.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->20.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Wall Street Journal</i>, “A Path Out of the Middle East Collapse”, 16 October 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->21.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Al Rai Media Group (Arabic), “The roles of the US, Russia, Turkey, Iran and Israel in Syria: moving towards the end of the war”, 14 March 2017. Translated at <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/the-roles-of-the-us-russia-turkey-iran-and-israel-in-syria-moving-towards-the-end-of-the-war/">https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/the-roles-of-the-us-russia-turkey-iran-and-israel-in-syria-moving-towards-the-end-of-the-war/</a>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->22.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>New York Times</i>, “U.S. Airlifts Hundreds of Militia Fighters in Attack to Cut Off Raqqa, Syria”, 22 March 2017.; <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, “U.S. Increases Support for New Anti-ISIS Operation in Syria”, 22 March 2017.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->23.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 428. Citing BBC Online, “MPs support UK air strikes against IS in Iraq”, 26 September 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->24.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Al Rai Media Group (Arabic), “Washington is uprooting part of Syria, demarcating its new “safe haven”, 27 March 2017. Translated at <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/washington-is-uprooting-part-of-syria-demarcating-its-new-safe-heaven/">https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/washington-is-uprooting-part-of-syria-demarcating-its-new-safe-heaven/</a>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->25.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Wall Street Journal</i>, “U.S. Forces Get More Freedom to Strike Militants in Somalia”, 30 March 2017.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->26.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->See <i>The Guardian</i>, “Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern”, 30 August 2013.; <i>Foreign Affairs</i>, “Putin’s Gas Attack: Is Russia Just in Syria for the Pipelines?”, 14 October, 2015.; <i>Middle East Eye</i>, “The US-Russia gas pipeline war in Syria could destabalise Putin”, 30 October 2015.; <i>EcoWatch</i>, “Syria: Another Pipeline War”, 25 February 2016.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->27.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Daily Beast</i>, “Tillerson: ‘Steps Underway’ for U.S.-Led Coalition to Remove Assad”, 6 April 2017.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->28.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>,<i> </i>pp. 469-504.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->29.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 444. Citing<i> Daily Caller</i>, “Understanding The Function Of The Islamic State”, 19 June 2015.<o:p></o:p></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-40021862196734045362017-04-09T14:24:00.000-07:002017-04-09T14:24:06.790-07:00The Purpose of ISIS, Pt. 4<div class="MsoNormal"><i>This is part 4 of a 5 part report which attempts to detail a history of the rise of ISIS and to explain its true relations to the actors involved in the war theatre. It attempts to show how and why ISIS has been exploited while also answering the question:&nbsp; what has been the group’s ultimate purpose in relation to the dominant powers manipulating the proxy conflict.&nbsp; Given what is known historically, it hopes to shed light on what the motivations are behind the current actions against the group, as well as what purpose they serve.<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>The Purpose of ISIS<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Awkwardly for those at the helm of the US-led bombing campaign, as time went on it became increasingly apparent that not only was the Islamic State not being “degraded and destroyed”, but, in fact, was growing and taking control of even more territory. This was further compounded by the groups’ relatively weak military capabilities, and the fact that the areas they occupied consisted mainly of open countryside with relatively few areas to hide their equipment and convoys.<sup>1</sup> US war veterans have even remarked that the US could have turned the tide against the organization using only aircrafts from the WWII-era, while other academics explain that “an international force could defeat ISIS in a matter of months” if they wanted to.<sup>2</sup>Despite all of this, after months of airstrikes, the <i>Wall Street Journal</i> noted that the US had “failed to prevent the Islamic State from expanding its control in Syria”, while the British press explained that “in both Syria and Iraq, Isis is expanding its control rather than contracting.”<sup>3<o:p></o:p></sup><br /><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">In fact, while the Pentagon paraded around statistics of killed ISIS fighters to showcase the campaign’s success, in reality by the summer of 2015 the Islamic State had seen a doubling in the number of its foreign fighters, more than replacing any of those claimed to have been killed.<sup>4</sup>Maps were similarly published showing ISIS’ territorial losses, yet at the same time evidence showed that its other territorial gains had actually offset any sort of contraction.<sup>5</sup> So while US aircraft patrolled the skies around the so-called caliphate, its fighters were more than free to roam throughout the territory they had claimed. Indeed, convoys consisting of upwards of hundreds of vehicles were mainly free to travel in long columns in wide-open desert terrain despite the ease with which such targets could be hit by US aircrafts.<sup>6<o:p></o:p></sup><br /><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">As this continued, it became increasingly difficult to conceal the truth, especially as Department of Defense analysts began to break ranks and complain that their superiors within senior levels of the intelligence command had deliberately been altering reports, downplaying the campaign’s failures and presenting it in a much more positive light.<sup>7 </sup>Furthermore, with the introduction of the Russian intervention, the insincerity of the US effort was even more &nbsp;laid bare. Not only had the Russians conducted more sorties against the group in one day than the US had in months, one of their first targets were its oil truck convoys which the US had deliberately refrained from hitting during their entire year-long campaign, despite it being one of the groups’ biggest sources of revenue.<sup>8</sup>Awkwardly as well, it was becoming increasingly apparent that US fighter jets were being particularly careful about avoiding engagement whenever ISIS was fighting against US adversaries such as the Syrian army or Hezbollah, a situation which was not lost on the administrations in Tehran and Damascus.<sup>9</sup><o:p></o:p><br /><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">The motivations underlying all of this were quite clearly articulated by an Iraqi army officer who argued that the “Americans weren’t really that serious in hitting the Islamic State.” Getting even closer to the truth, a commander of a Shia militia fighting in Iraq as well explained “we believe the US does not want to resolve the crisis but rather wants to manage the crisis… it does not want to end the Islamic State. It wants to exploit the Islamic State to achieve its projects in Iraq and in the region.”<sup>10</sup> <o:p></o:p><br /><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Elaborating on the US’ calculation even further, international correspondent Elijah J. Magnier explained that “as long as ISIS was headed towards creating a serious danger to Assad in Syria”, then its presence could be tolerated. The strategy revolved around maintaining “the organizations continuing ability to fight for as long as necessary in the process [of] depleting Iran, Hezbollah and its Iraqi proxies in Syria… Its continuing presence was needed so as to exhaust Iran and its allies in both Iraq and Syria.”<sup>11<o:p></o:p></sup><br /><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">One of the more prominent examples of this was when ISIS began to expand its control over territories outside of Syria and led an offensive into Iraq. <o:p></o:p><br /><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The offensive was known to US intelligence long before it was launched. Indeed, far from being indecipherable, the <i>Wall Street Journal</i> explained that such an advance was “apparent to anyone paying attention to Middle Eastern events”, noting that it “wasn’t an intelligence failure. It was a failure by policy makers to act on events that were becoming so obvious that the Iraqis were asking for American help for months... Mr. Obama declined to offer more than token assistance.”<sup>12</sup><o:p></o:p><br /><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">The reasons for this lie in the continuing shift towards Iran that was being undertaken by then Prime Minister Maliki and the subsequent expansion of Iranian influence over the Iraqi government that resulted. By this time, Maliki had appointed the pro-Iranian Hadi al-Amiri as transport minister, and in doing so “had effectively given Tehran the green light to use Iraqi infrastructure to channel supplies and fighters through the country to fight in Syria.”<sup>13</sup> Even more troubling, knowledgeable reports indicated that Maliki’s main objective was to prevent the establishment of any US military bases in the country, following an official request by Iran.<sup>14</sup>Therefore, for those committed to toppling the increasingly Iranian-backed Nouri al-Maliki administration, the ISIS offensive represented an important opportunity. <o:p></o:p><br /><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In this sense, the failure of the US to respond was explained by Obama himself. He noted that the US “did not just start taking a bunch of airstrikes all across Iraq as soon as ISIS came in” specifically because “that would have taken pressure off of al-Maliki.”<sup>15</sup> Indeed, harkening back to the aforementioned strategy of utilizing radical Sunni’s to pressure and put “fear into the government of Prime Minister Maliki”,<sup>16</sup>Obama said that a more forceful US response would have encouraged Maliki to think “We don’t actually have to make compromises. We don’t have to make any decisions. We don’t have to go through the difficult process of figuring out what we’ve done wrong in the past. All we have to do is let the Americans bail us out again. And we can go about business as usual.”<sup>17</sup><br /><sup><br /></sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">Therefore, Al Rai newspaper’s Elijah J. Magnier explains that “as long as the aim of ISIS’s military activity and expansion was to occupy land in Iraq, governed by pro-Iranian Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki (creating a weak state and much confusion in the Iraq-Iran relationship)”, then “the ISIS presence in Iraq could be tolerated” by the US.<sup>18<o:p></o:p></sup><br /><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">The result of this offensive was the unprecedented capture of Mosul, shocking observers worldwide.<o:p></o:p><br /><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Despite having a fighting force of no less than 350,000 battle-hardened soldiers, the Iraqi security forces simply “disintegrated and fled” in the face of roughly 1,300 lightly-armed ISIS jihadists.<sup>19</sup>This was later explained by analysts as being the result of corruption within the military, or due to indications that ISIS was welcomed by a significant portion of the population, or that it had in many ways already been operating a shadow government of sorts within the city.<sup>20</sup> While indicative, ISIS’ uncontested walk-in to Mosul &nbsp;could have been more directly linked to the desire of outside powers to replace Prime Minister Maliki. Indeed, the Gulf states did little to hide their animosity towards Maliki or their desire to overthrow his regime. As professor Fouad Ajami pointed out, after the US invasion “the Gulf autocracies had hunkered down and done their best to thwart the new Iraqi project” and were hoping to turn Maliki’s Iraq into a “cautionary tale of the folly of unseating even the worst of despots.”<sup>21</sup> At least from Maliki’s own perspective, it was Saudi Arabia and Qatar which were the main drivers of his overthrow.<sup>22</sup><o:p></o:p><br /><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Whatever the case, it was the pressure exerted on Maliki from the loss of Mosul and the inability to halt the Islamic States’ advances that were the main catalysts which lead to his ouster. According to one <i>Wall Street Journal</i> reporter, “After the rout of the Iraqi military that year, combined pressure from Washington and Tehran led the Iraqi parliament to oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, seen in both capitals as responsible for the debacle, and to replace him with current Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi."<sup>23</sup><o:p></o:p><br /><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">In this sense, the presence of the Islamic State had served a number of purposes for the outside powers involved within the region. Put in other words, University of Cincinnati professor emeritus Abraham Miller explains that “the Islamic State exists as a political structure whose function outweighs the political and military costs of defeating it, not just for the US but also for the Sunni sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf.” Functions which include providing “a direct check on the hegemonic interests of Iran to extend its reach from its eastern border into the Levant… The threat they [ISIS] pose is tolerated even by the Gulf sheikdoms as long as ISIS is focused on stopping Iranian hegemony.” Because of this, “Obama has no intention of destroying the Islamic State”, but rather “ISIS is a chain reaction. As long as it is controlled, its chaos is perceived to serve a multiplicity of purposes within and outside the region.”<sup>24</sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Notes:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->1.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, pp. 430-31. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->2.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 433. Citing Fox News, “Cruz fires up conservatives, says bomb Islamic State back to the Stone Age”, 31 August 2014.; <i>Daily Caller</i>, “Understanding The Function Of The Islamic State”, 19 June 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->3.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 431. Citing <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, “US-led Airstrikes Disrupt Islamic State, But Extremists Hold Territory”, 5 October 2014, <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, “Months of Airstrikes Fail to Slow Islamic State in Syria”, 15 January 2015. <i>The Independent</i>, “War against Isis: US air strategy in tatters as militants march on”, 11 October 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->4.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 432. Citing <i>New York Times</i>, “Thousands Enter Syria to Join ISIS Despite Global Efforts”, 26 September 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->5.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 442. Citing <i>Daily Beast</i>, “Exclusive: Pentagon Map Hides ISIS Gains”, 22 April 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->6.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->McClatchy, “Rebels call for U.S. airstrikes as Islamic State advances near Aleppo”, 1 June 2015.; C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 432-33.; <i>Huffington Post</i>, “If Syria and Iraq Become Fractured, So Too Will Tripoli and North Lebanon.” 1 June 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->7.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, pp. 441-42. Citing <i>New York Times</i>, “Analysts Detail Claims That Reports on ISIS Were Distorted”, 15 September 2015.; Daily Beast, “Exclusive: Pentagon Map Hides ISIS Gains”, 22 April 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->8.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Moon of Alabama, “Russia Finds - Shaming The U.S. Government Into Action Can Work”, 3 October 2016.; C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 443. Citing <i>The Independent</i>, “War in Syria: Russia’s rustbucket military delivers a hi-tech shock to West and Israel”, 30 January 2016.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->9.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Alrai Media Group (Arabic), “Obama has the upper hand over Iran and Russia in Syria and Iraq, And without major ground forces”, 17 August 2016. Translated at <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/obama-has-the-upper-hand-over-iran-and-russia-in-syria-and-iraq-and-without-major-ground-forces/">https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/obama-has-the-upper-hand-over-iran-and-russia-in-syria-and-iraq-and-without-major-ground-forces/</a>. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->10.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 438-39. Citing Rudaw (Kurdish), “The stunning story of the fall of Ramadi”, 24 May 2015. Quotes made by Qais al-Khazali, leader of Iran-backed paramilitary group <i>Asaib Ahl al-Haq</i>, Reuters, “Iraqi militia leader says US not serious about fighting Islamic State”, 28 July 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->11.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Alrai Media Group (Arabic), “Obama has the upper hand over Iran and Russia”, 17 August 2016. Translated at <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/obama-has-the-upper-hand-over-iran-and-russia-in-syria-and-iraq-and-without-major-ground-forces/">https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/obama-has-the-upper-hand-over-iran-and-russia-in-syria-and-iraq-and-without-major-ground-forces/</a>. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->12.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Wall Street Journal</i>, “Obama on Faulty Intelligence”, 30 September 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->13.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 385.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->14.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Alrai Media Group (Arabic), “Obama has the upper hand over Iran and Russia”, 17 August 2016. Translated at <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/obama-has-the-upper-hand-over-iran-and-russia-in-syria-and-iraq-and-without-major-ground-forces/">https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/obama-has-the-upper-hand-over-iran-and-russia-in-syria-and-iraq-and-without-major-ground-forces/</a>. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->15.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>New York Times</i>, “Obama on the World”, 8 August 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->16.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 367. Citing The New Yorker, “The Redirection”, 5 March 2007. Remarks made by Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->17.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 367. Citing The New Yorker, “The Redirection”, 5 March 2007. Remarks made by Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->18.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Alrai Media Group (Arabic), “Obama has the upper hand over Iran and Russia”, 17 August 2016. Translated at <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/obama-has-the-upper-hand-over-iran-and-russia-in-syria-and-iraq-and-without-major-ground-forces/">https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/obama-has-the-upper-hand-over-iran-and-russia-in-syria-and-iraq-and-without-major-ground-forces/</a>. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->19.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->P. Cockburn, <i>The Rise of Islamic State</i>, p. 15.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->20.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, pp. 385-86.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->21.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 384. Citing Ajami, “The Arab Spring at One”.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->22.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 388. Citing Press TV (Iran), “Exclusive: Maliki says Iran has important role in territorial integrity of regional countries”, 23 November 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->23.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Wall Street Journal</i>, “After Mosul, Will U.S.-Iran Rivalry Undermine Iraq?”, 16 March 2017.<o:p></o:p></div><br /><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->24.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 444. Citing<i> Daily Caller</i>, “Understanding The Function Of The Islamic State”, 19 June 2015.<o:p></o:p></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-74013230487997260922017-04-08T11:14:00.000-07:002017-04-09T23:42:38.927-07:00The Purpose of ISIS, Pt. 3<div class="MsoNormal"><i>This is part 3 of a 5 part report which attempts to detail a history of the rise of ISIS and to explain its true relations to the actors involved in the war theatre. It attempts to show how and why ISIS has been exploited while also answering the question:&nbsp; what has been the group’s ultimate purpose in relation to the dominant powers manipulating the proxy conflict. Given what is known historically, it hopes to shed light on what the motivations are behind the current actions against the group, as well as what purpose they serve.<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>A Salafist Principality for the West<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As the opposition became increasingly sectarian, it was apparent that it was the militant elements and their “deadly results”<sup>1</sup>which drove out and supplanted the real moderates. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">A leading figure in the early uprisings, Haytham Manna criticized the negative impact that external intervention had on the protest movement. Writing in <i>The Guardian</i> in 2012, he explained that the main effect of taking up arms was to “undermine the broad popular support necessary to transform the uprising into a democratic revolution.” Furthermore, it was the eventual “pumping of arms to Syria [from] Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the phenomenon of the Free Syrian Army, and the entry of more than 200 jihadi foreigners… [that] have all led to a decline in the mobilization of large segments of the population… and in the activists’ peaceful civil movement.” The net result of this being that “the political discourse has become sectarian; there has been a Salafisation of religiously conservative sectors.”<sup>2</sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Going a way to back up this view, Vice President Biden succinctly admitted that in terms of finding “moderates”, in reality “there was no moderate middle because the moderate middle are made up of shopkeepers, not soldiers.” The shopkeepers and reformists being sidelined as the West’s allies, in Biden’s view, “poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.”<sup>3<o:p></o:p></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">The realization in the White House was that if they realistically wanted their policy to have any success they would have to empower those capable of producing results. “This idea,” Obama remarked, “that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of &nbsp;former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth,” in other words, the moderate forces, “and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, &nbsp;was never in the cards.”<sup>4</sup> Instead, as investigative journalist Gareth Porter explains, the US would have to accept “a tacit reliance on the jihadists to achieve [their] objective of putting sufficient pressure on the Assad regime to force some concessions on Damascus.” Obama would have to “hide the reality that it was complicit in a strategy of arming [al-Qaeda]” by maintaining the illusion that an independent “moderate” opposition existed, as this would be “necessary to provide a political fig leaf for the covert and indirect U.S. reliance on Al Qaeda’s Syria franchise’s military success.”<sup>5</sup> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Indeed, not only was this all well understood by planners, the true extent of the empowerment of extremists was known to decision makers from the beginning. The CIA, for instance, very early on was informing the President in classified assessments that “most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar” were “going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition.”<sup>6</sup> The man described as the CIA’s “eyes and ears on the ground” in Syria, tasked with drawing up plans for regime change after spending a year meeting with rebels, concluded from his journey that in fact, “there were no moderates.”<sup>7</sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Even earlier the Defense Intelligence Agency was warning officials that events on the ground “are taking a clear sectarian direction” and left no doubt as to who was heading the opposition, stating “the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency.” Most remarkably, this 2012 report had predicted the rise of ISIS a full two years before it occurred, stating that “if the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria.” Far from being undesired, in terms of the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey, the report said “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”<sup>8<o:p></o:p></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Heading the DIA at the time, Michael Flynn confirmed the validity of this report, explaining that he “paid very close attention… the intelligence was very clear.”<sup>9</sup> Not only that, he confirmed that his agency sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the White House about these and other predictions, saying that the jihadists were in control of the opposition and that toppling Assad would have dire consequences. By 2013 the assessments were saying that the US’ covert effort “had morphed into an across-the-board technical, arms and logistical programme for all of the opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State. The so-called moderates had evaporated… and the US was arming extremists.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">But instead of heeding these warnings there was “enormous pushback” from the Obama administration, Flynn explaining that “I felt that they did not want to hear the truth.” Indeed, according to a Joint Chiefs of Staff advisor, there simply was “no way to stop the arms shipments that had been authorized by the president.” Even though, Flynn said, “if the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.”<sup>10<o:p></o:p></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">When asked if this obstinacy was a result of mere negligence on the part of the civilian administration, remarkably Flynn replied “I don’t think they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.” Asked to clarify if he meant the US government deliberately decided to support extremist groups and the founding of a Salafist principality, Flynn stood firm and said “it was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.”<sup>11</sup> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke later attempted to shed some light on the strategic thinking behind all of this. He explained that the idea “of breaking up the large Arab states into ethnic and sectarian enclaves” had been “established group think” at least as far back as 2006, and that this idea had been “given new life by the desire to pressure Assad in the wake of the 2011 insurgency launched against the Syrian state.” The idea being to drive “a Sunni ‘wedge’ into the landline linking Iran to Syria”, and thereby fracture the connection between Iran and its Arab allies.<sup>12<o:p></o:p></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Following along with much of what Biden, Obama, and others had said about the inability to find moderates and the necessity of relying upon extremists, Crooke concluded&nbsp;that “the jihadification of the Syrian conflict had been a ‘willful’ policy decision, and that since Al Qaeda and the ISIS embryo were the only movements capable of establishing such a Caliphate across Syria and Iraq, then it plainly followed that the U.S. administration, and its allies, tacitly accepted this outcome, in the interests of weakening, or of overthrowing, the Syrian state.”<sup>13</sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>A Useful Pretext<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Much effort has been made to portray ISIS as antagonistic to US interests and to place blame for its rise on official enemies. This is not surprising given the near-unanimous outrage that the group elicited after emerging on the world stage. However, outside of being a useful ideological construct, this analysis neglects some very fundamental characteristics inherent to the situation.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Apart from the obvious conspiracy theories there is of course evidence that after ISIS was founded in 2014 it had made a sort of compact with Bashar al-Assad’s government. After gaining access to documents of a former deputy to Baghdadi, <i>Der Spiegel</i>uncovered what appeared to be an agreement between ISIS and Syria’s <i>Ba’ath </i>regime. The nature of the agreement was an understanding that Syria’s air force would not strike ISIS and in return ISIS commanders promised to order their fighters not to fire on Syrian army soldiers. This made sense for ISIS since its immediate goal was to gain supremacy over Sunni areas while the Syrian army was, as well, primarily concentrated on the immediate threats that it faced from other groups further west. It was in the interests of both sides to avoid a mutually assured destruction with each other.<sup>14<o:p></o:p></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">The problem with taking this too far is that after ISIS had consolidated its hold over Raqqa and gained supremacy over much of the other rebel groups this understanding appeared to have dissolved, ISIS then mounting an assault against the Syrian army at Al-Tabqa airbase and executing more than 160 Syrian soldiers.&nbsp; Since that point, ISIS has been in a constant state of war with the Syrian army, despite many attempts by regime-change supporters to claim otherwise.<sup>15<i><o:p></o:p></i></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">These kinds of arguments seem to miss an even larger aspect of the bigger picture and misinterpret the motivation of the various players involved. A truer picture of the situation is perhaps best exemplified by the dilemma that faced the Western powers as the public became increasingly aware of ISIS’ atrocities and began calling for some kind of a response to be made against the group. As Western officials had portrayed ISIS as a grave threat to Western civilization, there was great pressure on them to put their money where their mouth was and act. However, this put them in an awkward position.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">For one thing, in terms of breaking up an enemy state into sectarian enclaves, ISIS had indeed proven quite efficient. It was also emerging as the strongest opponent to Assad and had accomplished much in the way of weakening the Syrian state, while, as well, driving an effective ‘Sunni wedge’ between Iran and its’ allies. Problematically then, as Christopher Davidson explains, “the Islamic State was effectively on the same side as the West, especially in Syria, and in all its other warzones was certainly in the same camp as the West’s regional allies.” Moreover, “on a strategic level, its big gains had made it by far the best battlefield asset to those who sought the permanent dismemberment of Syria and the removal of Nouri Maliki in Iraq.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The trick, therefore, was “trying to find the right balance between being seen to take action but yet still allowing the Islamic State to prosper.”<sup>16<o:p></o:p></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">The response was an airstrike campaign aimed primarily at delineating boundaries that the group was not allowed to cross, mainly around the US’ own allies. This campaign also served as a useful opportunity to establish a military presence in Syria which otherwise would not have been manageable. After all, who would object to such an operation when it was being targeted against such a horrific barbarity as the Islamic State?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">After having done nothing to stop the previous sectarian massacres that ISIS had committed, the US decided to launch its’ campaign when it appeared that the Yazidi’s in Iraq were about to face an imminent genocide at the hands of the advancing jihadists. While the mission was portrayed as a selfless rescue mission necessary to break a debilitating siege that ISIS had inflicted upon the Yazidis, in reality Kurdish fighters had already arrived on the scene days before the US got there and had begun the process of evacuating the civilians from the area.<sup>17<o:p></o:p></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">The real reason the US launched the mission was because ISIS was advancing towards the nearby Kurdish capital of Irbil which represents a key US client and area of extraction for Western energy companies. Apart from Western oil interests being heavily invested in the exploitation of the area’s natural resources, it also houses Israeli and US intelligence and military operatives conducting anti-Syrian, anti-Iranian, and other regional operations.<sup>18</sup>Yet the main strategic purpose of this US alliance with Iraqi Kurdistan has been to make sure that the regime in Baghdad stayed in line; one CIA memorandum stating that the Iraqi Kurds are a “uniquely useful tool for weakening Iraq’s potential”, as well as a “card to play” against the Iraqi state.<sup>19<o:p></o:p></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Therefore, far removed from the very public displays of humanitarian concern, Obama explained that the US would “take action if [ISIS] threatens our facilities anywhere in Iraq… including Irbil”, and made good on his promise that airstrikes would be launched “should they move toward” the Kurdish capital.<sup>20</sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">The analogous delineation of boundaries in Syria occurred a few months later when the US launched airstrikes to help defend the Kurdish enclave of Kobane from a similar assault by the Islamic State, the Syrian Kurds fast becoming a useful US ally on the ground. A highly-publicized spectacle, these airstrikes helped to solidify the legitimacy of the illegal bombing campaign. However, it was never apparent how crucial the US’ assistance actually was, or if the bulk of the city’s defense hadn’t already been secured by the towns battle-hardened fighters.<sup>21</sup> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Nevertheless, these pretexts proved useful. In one sense, they allowed the West to appear responsive to public demands for action, while, at the same time, allowing Western aircraft to conduct a de-facto no-fly-zone over ISIS territory in Syria. There was a real danger that states genuinely committed to the protection of the Syrian government, notably Iran but possibly Russia, would take matters into their own hands and actually try to eradicate the Islamic State. In this sense, the US-led campaign was useful in portraying the image of US commitment to defeating ISIS while insuring, as well, that no other state would defeat the group before their use had been exhausted and the West could claim that symbolic victory for themselves.<sup>22</sup> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Notes:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->1.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Council on Foreign Relations</i>, “Al-Qaeda’s Specter in Syria”, 6 August 2012.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->2.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Guardian</i>, “Syria's opposition has been led astray by violence”, 22 June 2012.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->3.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->P. Cockburn, <i>The Rise of Islamic State</i>, pp. xix-xx.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->4.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>New York Times</i>, “Obama on the World”, 8 August 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->5.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Consortium News</i>, “Obama’s ‘Moderate’ Syrian Deception”, 16 February 2016.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->6.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>New York Times</i>, “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=3&amp;">Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria</a>”, 14 October 2012.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->7.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>NBC News</i>, “<a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-nixed-cia-plan-could-have-stopped-isis-officials-n549111">Obama Nixed CIA Plan That Could Have Stopped ISIS: Officials</a>”, 2 April 2016.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->8.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Department of Defense, "Information Report 14-L-0552/DIA", August 2012 (subpoenaed), pp. 287-93.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->9.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Al Jazeera</i>, “Head to Head: Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL”, 29 July 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->10.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>London Review of Books</i>, “Military to Military”, 7 January 2016.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->11.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Al Jazeera</i>, “Head to Head: Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL”, 29 July 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->12.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Huffington Post</i>, “If Syria and Iraq Become Fractured, So Too Will Tripoli and North Lebanon”, 1 June 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->13.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Consortium News</i>, “Lost on the ‘Dark Side’ in Syria”, 17 November 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->14.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, pp. 391-92. Citing <i>Der Spiegel</i>, “The Terror Strategist: Secret Files Reveal the Structure of Islamic State”, 18 April 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->15.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., pp. 392-93. Citing <i>Daily Star</i>, “ISIS seizes last Syrian regime base in Raqqa province”, 25 August 2014. Channel NewsAsia, “IS executes more than 160 Syria troops in new atrocity”, 28 August 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->16.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., pp. 421-22.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->17.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 423. Citing <i>New York Times</i>, “Despite US Claims, Yazidis Say Crisis is Not Over”, 14 August 2014. <i>Washington Post</i>, “Why can’t the US figure out how many Yazidis are on Mount Sinjar?”, 15 August 2014.; <i>Gulf News</i>, “Kurds unite to oust Iraq jihadists, rescue stranded civilian”, 6 August 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->18.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>The New Yorker</i>, “Plan B”, 28 June 2004. <i>CNBC</i>, “Iraqi Kurdistan-focused oil shares hit by IS advance”, 7 August 2014. RiskAdvisory, “Security in Iraqi Kurdistan – between perception and reality”, 18 September 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->19.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 424. Citing William Blum, <i>Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II</i>, p. 243.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->20.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Washington Post</i>, “U.S. airstrikes target Islamic State militants in northern Iraq”, 8 August 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->21.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C. Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 431. <o:p></o:p></div><br /><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->22.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 428.<o:p></o:p></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-63938281235158458322017-04-07T11:43:00.000-07:002017-04-07T11:43:07.315-07:00The Purpose of ISIS, Pt. 2<div class="MsoNormal"><i>This is part 2 of a 5-part report which attempts to detail a history of the rise of ISIS and to explain its true relations to the actors involved in the war theatre. It attempts to show how and why ISIS has been exploited while attempting to answer the question: what has been the groups’ ultimate purpose in relation to the dominant powers manipulating the proxy conflict. Then, given what is known historically, it hopes to shed light on what the motivations are behind the current actions against the group and what purpose they serve.<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>The “Moderate” Jihad in Syria<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Syria was externally targeted because the US and its allies saw it as strategically beneficial to organize and foster an armed insurgency which could eventually become capable of overturning the government. The most prominent aspect of this being the attempt to create a “Free Syrian Army” of opposition fighters which could be displayed as the respectable and indigenous face of the insurgency and help sell the intervention to the Western public. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Helping to hide the foreign hand behind the militants, the rebel arming program was only officially announced in 2013, yet in reality began almost two years prior, at least as early as October 2011 after the fall of Gaddafi in Libya, but likely even much earlier.<sup>1</sup> Also dispelling the illusion that these FSA groups were solely a native development, it was revealed in late 2011 that US Special Operations Forces were on the ground and privately discussing to themselves how “there isn’t much of a Free Syrian Army to train right now”, the groups only later gaining prominence as a result of the foreign interference.<sup>2</sup> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Indeed, by this time knowledgeable academics such as Columbia University’s Joseph Massad were writing that the “[Arab] League and imperial powers have taken over the Syrian uprising in order to remove the al-Assad regime”, while the West’s best journalists would later characterize the program by saying “the impression one gets is of a movement wholly controlled by Arab and Western intelligence agencies.”<sup>3</sup>Corroborating much of this, a former rebel explained to the <i>Wall Street Journal</i> how the insurgency was largely being directed from abroad, saying that “decisions weren’t always being made at the local level.” Instead, it was “the Salafists from Gulf nations… and the Muslim Brotherhood in Turkey” who would “send money to certain groups and then orchestrate attacks from afar.”<sup>4<o:p></o:p></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Concurrently, great efforts were made to portray the FSA as an entirely independent outfit and to separate Western involvement from the extremist groups that were beginning to form. However, apart from whatever the rebels would tell the Western press, the reality on the ground was that there was never any division between the FSA and groups like al-Qaeda, the Islamists having been welcomed from the very start.<sup>5</sup> For instance, the founder of the FSA, Syrian army defector Riad el-Asaad, described al-Qaeda as “our brothers in Islam”, while another rebel commander, a main recipients of US aid, admitted that his organizations was very much alike al-Qaeda and that the two groups fought alongside each other. Al-Qaeda did not, he said, “exhibit any abnormal behavior, which is different from that of the FSA.”<sup>6</sup> So while US officials maintained that they only supported “moderates”, journalist Patrick Cockburn gets much closer to the truth, explaining that “it is here that there was a real intention to deceive”, because “in reality, there is no dividing wall between them [ISIS and al-Qaeda] and America’s supposedly moderate opposition allies.”<sup>7</sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;Also troubling for the oppositions’ image, the “moderate” nature of the US vetted groups soon began to unravel, the FSA consistently being described as even worse than the groups who are commonly associated with extremism. While Department of Defense officials were aware that the “vast majority of moderate Free Syrian Army rebels were in fact, Islamist militants”, counterterrorism specialists explained that the “undisciplined and brutal behavior of the FSA stood in contrast to the much more disciplined <i>Jabhat Al-Nusra</i>.” Indeed, the British press described this brutal behavior in terms of their “looting and banditry”, explaining that “the FSA has now become a largely criminal enterprise” as they have been primarily focused on “profiteering, gun-running, and the extracting of tolls from road checkpoints.”<sup>8<o:p></o:p></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Also quite troubling, being enmeshed with the other fighters the FSA had soon assumed the de-facto function of serving as a weapons conduit to the extremists. While it was later confirmed that at least half of all supplies given to the “moderates” were duly handed over to al-Qaeda,<sup>9</sup>multiple court cases earlier revealed that arms shipments received by the FSA would be unloaded and distributed quite indiscriminately to whoever was fighting nearby. Helping to explain this, former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke pointed out that “the West does not actually hand the weapons to al-Qaeda, let alone ISIS… but the system that they have constructed leads precisely to that end.” This is because the weapons shipments given to the FSA “have been understood to be a sort of ‘Wal Mart’ from which the more radical groups would be able to take their weapons and pursue the jihad”, as weapons always migrated “along the line to the more radical elements.”<sup>10</sup> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">This wasn’t something that the Western backers of the opposition just turned a blind eye to, instead such cooperation with jihadists was explicitly ordered by them on multiple occasions, usually when the extremists were needed to win battlefield victories. In 2014, for example, a CIA-backed commander explained that “if the people who support us [the US and its allies] tell us to send weapons to another group, we send them. They asked us a month ago to send weapons to [hard-line Islamists] in Yabroud so we sent a lot of weapons there.” <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">On a separate occasion, US-led operations rooms “specifically encouraged a closer cooperation with Islamists commanding frontline operations” during the conquest of Idlib, the supervision given by US military intelligence operatives being “instrumental in facilitating their [Islamists’] involvement.”<sup>11</sup> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Enter the Proxies<o:p></o:p></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Having successfully kept most of this hidden from view, focus on the FSA program helped to distract from the wider reality that the US and its allies were supporting the entire opposition indiscriminately. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">It has long been known that states like Qatar had been supporting both al-Qaeda and ISIS,<sup>12</sup> their own deputy foreign minister openly stating “I am very much against excluding anyone at this stage, or bracketing them as terrorists, or bracketing them as al-Qaeda given Qatar’s perceived necessity of removing al-Assad at all costs.” As well, al-Qaeda’s Syria franchise themselves admitted that they “get money from the Gulf” with their “great name.”<sup>13</sup> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Also widely known is that Saudi Arabia and Turkey both had intimate ties with al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the rest of the other radical jihadists. Far from trying to hide these connections, both countries had in fact openly supported a rebel coalition that was dominated by al-Qaeda.<sup>14 </sup>Yet in reality this was all undertaken in cooperation with the United States or with their implicit blessing. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Getting to the heart of the matter, an extensive investigation by <i>Foreign Policy’s</i>Elizabeth Dickenson uncovered that not only had Qatar gotten “such freedom to run its network for the last three years because Washington was looking the other way,” but that “in fact, in 2011, the US gave Doha de facto free rein to do what it wasn’t willing to do.”<sup>15</sup> White House officials explained that “Syria is [Qatar’s] backyard”, while academics similarly concluded “there is no chance that Qatar is doing this alone.”<sup>16</sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Indeed, the weapons shipments coming from Qatar had been conducted in conjunction with the CIA, who US officials confirm acted in a “consultant role.”<sup>17</sup> In the case of Saudi Arabia, whose former foreign minister himself admitted that it was the Saudi monarchy who created ISIS, stating “Daesh [ISIS] is our [Sunni] response to your support for the Da’wa [Iran-aligned Shia ruling party of Iraq]”,<sup>18</sup> their involvement was also conducted jointly with the US. The terms of this arrangement, revealed by <i>The New York Times</i>, was that the Saudis would provide large sums of money and weapons and in exchange would be granted a seat at the table and have a say as to which groups would be supported, while the CIA would coordinate such shipments and help train the fighters.<sup>19</sup> Seemingly finding no objections from their US partners, we now know that they and other Gulf allies were the ones “who fund [ISIS]”, as was revealed by then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in congressional testimony.<sup>20</sup> Similarly, while it was revealed that Turkey’s intimate coordination with ISIS was “undeniable”,<sup>21</sup> in fact evidence suggests the country’s weapons shipments were largely conducted in cooperation with CIA officers and US officials,<sup>22</sup> cooperation which continued even as it was revealed that Turkey was collaborating with ISIS and allowing substantial tracts of its territory to remain open to the group.<sup>23</sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Honest reporters therefore correctly categorized the US’ involvement by explaining that “the U.S. in many ways is acting in Syria through proxies, primarily Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates”, while Turkey was “taking the lead as U.S. proxy.”<sup>24</sup> Western officials however began to publicly distance themselves from this involvement, claiming the “US had growing concerns that, just as in Libya, the Qataris are equipping some of the wrong militants.” This was worrying because “this has the potential to go badly wrong… [because of] the risk that weapons will end up in the hands of violent anti-Western Islamists.”<sup>25</sup> Yet as Christopher Davison explains, whom the Economist describes as “one of the most knowledgeable academics writing about the region”, this was all an attempt to “establish some distance” between the US and its allies in the Gulf, “so as to insulate themselves from any possible fallout from such risky moves.”<sup>26</sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Describing the true relationship, a former advisor to one of the Gulf states explained that the reason the US did not try to stop nations like Qatar from delivering weapons to extremists was simply because “they didn’t want to.”<sup>27</sup><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">The reason the Western powers were supporting such virulent elements was actually quite simple. Besides having a well-documented history of supporting jihadist networks against their enemies,<sup>28</sup> the most radical groups taking part in the Syria conflict were as well the best and most effective fighters. Joshua Landis, a US academic and specialist on Syria, explained that the “radicals got money because they were successful. They fought better, had better strategic vision and were more popular.”<sup>29</sup>Helping to explain the thought process further, prominent think-tank analysts actually recommended supporting al-Qaeda under the basis that they bring “discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf,” and most importantly, “deadly results.”<sup>30</sup> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">Therefore, as former British diplomat Alastair Crooke explains, the operative idea was to “use jihadists to weaken the government in Damascus and to drive it to its knees to the negotiating table.”<sup>31<o:p></o:p></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Notes:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->1.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Julian E. Barnes and Adam Entous, “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-give-some-syria-rebels-ability-to-call-airstrikes-1424208053">U.S. to Give Some Syria Rebels Ability to Call Airstrikes</a>,” <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, 17 February 2015.; <i>Judicial Watch</i>, “<a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/">Defense, State Department Documents Reveal Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance</a>,” 18 May 2015.; Seymour M. Hersh, “<a href="https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line">The Red Line and the Rat Line</a>,”<i> London Review of Books</i>,” 17 April 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->2.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->&nbsp;The Free Syrian Army never had a central command structure, it always referred to a myriad of disparate groups using the label as a brand name, but the FSA has also become a euphemism for describing any CIA supported and/or vetted groups. <i>WikiLeaks</i>, “<a href="https://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/emailid/204627">INSIGHT - military intervention in Syria, post withdrawal status of forces</a>”, cable released on 6 March 2012.; Aron Lund speculates that when the FSA was created in July 2011 it could have been the product of a Turkish intelligence operation. Aron Lund, “<a href="http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/the-free-syrian-army-doesnt-exist/">The Free Syrian Army Doesn’t Exist</a>,” <i>Syria Comment</i>, March 16, 2013.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->3.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 320. Citing Joseph Massad, “<a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011111555722772798.html">The struggle for Syria</a>,” <i>Al Jazeera</i>, 15 November 2011.; Patrick Cockburn, <i>The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution</i>, p. 86.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->4.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Raja Abdulrahim,<i> </i>“<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-syrian-rebel-mourns-uprisings-failure-1453858019">Former Syrian Rebel Mourns Uprising’s Failure</a>,” <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, 26 January 2016.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->5.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->“Some rebel units around Damascus, which had earlier given themselves Islamic-sounding names to attract Saudi and Gulf financing, opportunistically switched to more secular-sounding titles in a bid to attract American support”, Patrick Cockburn, <i>The Rise of Islamic State</i>, p. 26.; Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 335, 336.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->6.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Bill Roggio, “<a href="http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/03/free_syrian_army_com.php">Free Syrian Army commander praises al Nusrah Front as ‘brothers’</a>,” <i>Long War Journal</i>, 30 March 2013.; Joshua Landis, “US Key Man in Syria Worked Closely with ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra,” <a href="https://twitter.com/joshua_landis/status/504610185952784384">https://twitter.com/joshua_landis/status/504610185952784384</a>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->7.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Patrick Cockburn, <i>The Rise of Islamic State</i>, p. 3.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->8.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, pp. 334-336. Citing Nafeez Ahmed, “<a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/cancer-modern-capitalism-1323585268">Islamic State is the cancer of modern capitalism</a>,” <i>Middle East Eye</i>, 27 March 2015, and counterterrorism expert A. Hashim, “The Islamic state: from Al-Qaeda affiliate to caliphate”, <i>Middle East Policy</i>, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2014, p. 7, and Ruth Sherlock, “<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10485970/Syria-dispatch-from-band-of-brothers-to-princes-of-war.html">Syria dispatch: from band of brothers to princes of war</a>,”<i> Daily Telegraph</i>, 30 November 2013.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->9.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Thanassis Cambanis, “<a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/29/the-syrian-revolution-against-al-qaeda-jabhat-al-nusra-fsa/">The Syrian Revolution Against al Qaeda</a>,” <i>Foreign Policy</i>, 29 March 2016. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->10.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Comments made by Alastair Crooke, “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0qy9">Al Qaeda in Syria</a>,” <i>BBC</i>, 17 December 2015.; Richard Norton-Taylor, “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo">Terror trial collapses after fears of deep embarrassment to security services</a>,” <i>Guardian</i>, 1 June 2015. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->11.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Isabel Hunter, “<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/i-am-not-fighting-againstalqaida-itsnot-our-problem-says-wests-last-hope-in-syria-9233424.html">'I am not fighting against al-Qa’ida… it’s not our problem', says West’s last hope in Syria</a>,” <i>The Independent</i>,<i> </i>2 April 2015. No longer available, archived at <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140406105449/http:/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/i-am-not-fighting-againstalqaida-itsnot-our-problem-says-wests-last-hope-in-syria-9233424.html">https://web.archive.org/web/20140406105449/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/i-am-not-fighting-againstalqaida-itsnot-our-problem-says-wests-last-hope-in-syria-9233424.html</a>.; Charles Lister, “<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-assad-is-losing/">Why Assad is losing</a>,” <i>Brookings</i>, 5 May 2015.; Nafeez Ahmed, “<a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/endless-enemies-how-us-supporting-islamic-state-fighting-it-1621962798">Endless enemies – how the US is supporting the Islamic State by fighting it</a>,” <i>Middle East Eye</i>, 17 July 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->12.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 322, 456. Citing US Navy admiral and former NATO supreme commander James Stavridis, “the biggest share of the individual donations supporting the Islamic State and the most radical groups comes from Qatar,” <i>NBC News</i>, “<a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/whos-funding-isis-wealthy-gulf-angel-investors-officials-say-n208006?cid=par-time_20140921">Who’s Funding ISIS? Wealthy Gulf Angel Investors, Officials Say</a>”, 21 September 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->13.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 322. Citing Elizabeth Dickenson, “<a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/30/the-case-against-qatar/">The Case Against Qatar</a>,” <i>Foreign Policy</i>, 30 September 2014, and Weiss, <i>ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror</i>, p. 100.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->14.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Desmond Butler, “<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/07/turkey-saudi-arabia-syria-rebels-pact_n_7232750.html">Turkey Officials Confirm Pact With Saudi Arabia to Help Rebels Fighting Syria’s Assad</a>,” <i>Huffington Post</i>, 7 May<sup>&nbsp;</sup>2015. No longer available, archived at <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150508173130/http:/www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/07/turkey-saudi-arabia-syria-rebels-pact_n_7232750.html">https://web.archive.org/web/20150508173130/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/07/turkey-saudi-arabia-syria-rebels-pact_n_7232750.html</a>.;&nbsp; For further information on Saudi Arabia and Turkey’s support, see Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, pp. 324-26, 453-67.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->15.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 321. Citing Elizabeth Dickenson, “<a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/30/the-case-against-qatar/">The Case Against Qatar</a>,” <i>Foreign Policy</i>, 30 September 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->16.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., pp. 321-22. Citing Mark Mazzetti, C. J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt, “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/world/middleeast/sending-missiles-to-syrian-rebels-qatar-muscles-in.html">Taking Outsize Role in Syria, Qatar Funnels Arms to Rebels</a>,” <i>New York </i>Times, 29 June 2013, and David Roberts of King’s College London, , “<a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31764114">Is Qatar bringing the Nusra Front in from the cold?</a>”, <i>BBC Online</i>, 6 March 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->17.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p.324. Citing Mark Mazzetti, et al., “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/world/middleeast/sending-missiles-to-syrian-rebels-qatar-muscles-in.html">Taking Outsize Role in Syria, Qatar Funnels Arms to Rebels</a>,” <i>New York </i>Times, 29 June 2013.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->18.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]--><i>Financial Times</i>, “<a href="https://www.ft.com/content/876a971c-0644-11e6-a70d-4e39ac32c284">Mutual suspicion frays historic US-Saudi ties</a>,” 20 April 2016.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->19.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo, “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0">U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels</a>,” <i>New York Times</i>, 23 January 2016.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->20.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->C-SPAN, “<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4509231/general-dempsey-acknowledges-us-arab-allies-funding-isis">General Dempsey acknowledges U.S. Arab allies funding ISIS</a>”, 16 September 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->21.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Martin Chulov, “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/26/isis-syria-turkey-us">Turkey sends in jets as Syria’s agony spills over every border</a>,” <i>Guardian</i>, 26 July 2015.; Nafeez Ahmed, “<a href="https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/europe-is-harbouring-the-islamic-state-s-backers-d24db3a24a40">NATO is harbouring the Islamic State</a>,” <i>Insurge Intelligence</i>, 19 November 2015.; For further corroboration of Turkish complicity, see Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow </i>Wars, pp. 461-67.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->22.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, pp. 466-67. Citing Eric Schmitt, “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html">CIA Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syria Opposition</a>,” <i>New York Times</i>, 21 June 2012.; Fehim Tastekin, “<a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/01/turkey-syria-intelligence-service-shipping-weapons.html">Turkish military says MIT shipped weapons to al-Qaeda</a>,” <i>Al-Monitor</i>, 15 January 2015.; “Syria-bound trucks put spotlight on Turkey,” <i>Al-Monitor</i>, 21 January 2014.; Ruth Sherlock, “<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11224488/Fears-that-US-weapons-will-fall-into-al-Qaedas-hands-as-Syrian-rebels-defect.html">Fears that US weapons will fall into al-Qaeda’s hands as Syrian rebels defect</a>,” <i>Daily Telegraph</i>, 11 November 2014.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->23.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 461-62.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->24.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Jay Solomon and Nour Malas, “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303410404577464763551149048">U.S. Bolsters Ties to Fighters in Syria</a>,” <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, 13 June 2012.; Philip Giraldi, “<a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/nato-vs-syria/">NATO vs. Syria</a>,” <i>American Conservative</i>, 19 December 2011.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->25.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, pp. 324-25. Citing James Risen, et al., “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html">US-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell into Jihadis’ Hands</a>,” <i>New York Times</i>, 5 December 2012.; Adam Entous, et al., “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323423804579024452583045962">A Veteran Saudi Power Player Works to Build Support to Topple Assad</a>,” <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, 25 August 2013.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->26.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 325.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->27.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Andrew Cockburn, “<a href="http://harpers.org/archive/2016/01/a-special-relationship/4/">A Special Relationship</a>,” <i>Harpers</i>, January 2016.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->28.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, pp. 85-176.; Nafeez Ahmed, “<a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/cancer-modern-capitalism-1323585268">Islamic State is the cancer of modern capitalism</a>,” <i>Middle East Eye</i>, 27 March 2015.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->29.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->John Judis, “<a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/americas-failure-russia-success-in-syrias-war">America’s Failure – and Russia and Iran’s Success – in Syria’s Cataclysmic Civil War</a>,” <i>TPM</i>, 10 January 2017.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->30.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ed Husain, “<a href="http://www.cfr.org/syria/al-qaedas-specter-syria/p28782">Al-Qaeda’s Specter in Syria</a>,” <i>Council on Foreign Relations</i>, 6 August 2012.<o:p></o:p></div><br /><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->31.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Comments made by Alastair Crooke, “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0qy9">Al Qaeda in Syria</a>,” <i>BBC</i>, 17 December 2015.<o:p></o:p></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-15885255759808446462017-04-06T16:52:00.001-07:002017-04-06T17:23:03.974-07:00The Purpose of ISIS, Pt. 1<i><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This is the first of a 5-part report which attempts to detail a history of the rise of ISIS and to explain its true relations to the actors involved in the war theatre. It attempts to show how and why ISIS has been exploited while attempting to answer the question: what has been the groups’ ultimate purpose in relation to the dominant powers manipulating the proxy conflict. Then, given what is known historically, it hopes to shed light on what the motivations are behind the current actions against the group and what purpose they serve.</span></i><br /><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">ISIS is Born in Iraq<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The origins of ISIS are buried beneath the rubble of the US occupation.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">It was out of this crucible of war and invasion that the original grievances were born, leading analysts to conclude that “the basic causes of the birth of ISIS” were the United States’ “destructive interventions in the Middle East and the war in Iraq.”<sup>1<o:p></o:p></sup></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The framework underlying this being the exacerbation of Sunni-Shia tensions in the aftermath of the invasion, which previously have been inflamed through various other foreign interferences. These were highlighted by the sectarian brutality of the post-invasion Iraqi government, which then continued under Maliki later on. Given this, some have concluded that Saddam had simply been replaced by another “repressive and murderous authoritarian state, albeit under a more representative sectarian set up.”<sup>2<o:p></o:p></sup></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The Maliki-era repression was also marked by the governments’ continual gravitation towards Iran, further stoking fears within the Sunni community that Iraq would become an Iranian-backed Shia power that would exact further reprisals against its Sunni population. Grievances were therefore ignited not only against the violation of the occupation but as well among even non-Islamist Sunnis who felt marginalized and threatened by their government.<sup>3</sup><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">&nbsp;Out of this sectarian nexus, a man known by the name of al-Zarqawi was able to bring together various groups of jihadists under the umbrella of “al-Qaeda in Iraq” and lay the foundations for a sort of governmental structure which could evolve into an eventual Islamic state.<sup> </sup>A veteran of the jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, Zarqawi had reportedly obtained sanctuary in Iran where he accumulated weapons and equipment before later returning to Iraq to oppose the US occupation.<sup>4<o:p></o:p></sup></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Following al-Zarqawi’s death at the hands of a US airstrike, a new federation of jihadists then established the “Islamic State in Iraq” by the end of 2006, although it was at first marked by widespread defections as the Sunni insurgency was then losing momentum. However, evidence reveals that Syria’s Bashar al-Assad had helped the insurgents by facilitating the flow of jihadists into Iraq, in an apparent attempt to jeopardize the US occupation and thereby prevent against a similar US attack against Syria.<sup>5</sup><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Yet what really allowed ISI to expand its influence were the abuses and violence perpetrated by the US military.<sup>6</sup> Rising to power during his imprisonment in the infamous Camp Bucca, the group was rejuvenated under the enhanced leadership of the mysterious to-be-named al-Baghdadi.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">However, it is widely accepted that the Camp Bucca prison served as a sort of training ground or “jihadist university” from which the eventual Islamic State was born. The networks Baghdadi established there going on to form the upper echelons of the groups top leadership. Indeed, without such military detentions “it would have been impossible for so many likeminded jihadists and insurgents to have met together safely in Iraq at that time without such a protective atmosphere as Bucca.” In this sense, a former inmate explains that the US did “a great favor” for the mujahideen, having “provided us with a secure atmosphere, a bed and food, and also allowed books giving us a great opportunity to feed our knowledge with the ideas of al-Maqdisi and the jihadist ideology.”<sup>7</sup> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Yet the round-ups conducted by the US army were indiscriminate and civilians were targeted wholesale, estimates from 2006 confirming that only 15% of detainees were true adherents of any kind of extremist ideology.<sup>8</sup> Yet now jihadists leaders like Baghdadi were given an opportunity to further radicalize others, prisoners explaining how “under the watchful eye of the US soldiers”, “new recruits were prepared so that when they were freed they were ticking time bombs”, not the least of which due to the extensively documented abuses and torture that took place there as well.<sup>9</sup><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Concurrent with this was a covert attempt by the US military to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq by fostering alliances with other al-Qaeda-affiliated Sunnis. Spelled out and confirmed by an army-commissioned Rand report, the strategy was to utilize groups like ISI, who, although having fought against the US military, could be counted on to “sow divisions in the jihadist camp” by fighting against al-Qaeda, and thereby the US could exploit “the common threat that al-Qaeda now poses to both parties.” <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Mass releases from Bucca were therefore orchestrated in an attempt to augment the strategy with manpower and engender support from the local Sunni tribes. And while the strategy in a sense succeeded, at the same time, it also emboldened another segment of disgruntled Sunnis, when the original causes of their resentments were continuing under the anti-Sunni repression of the US-backed government. The resulting sectarian violence pushed other Sunnis into supporting ISI as the lesser of the two evils, further entrenching the groups foothold in the country.<sup>10</sup><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Yet this was only half of the story. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">By this time influential policy planners were already thinking up other strategic uses which could be gleaned from supporting these disgruntled Sunni radicals. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The accelerated relationship then forming between Maliki and Iran had greatly distressed the White House. Fearing an Iranian-dominated Iraq more so than a resurgence of al-Qaeda, in the context of a “redirection” of US policy against Iran, it was thought that “ties between the US and moderate or even radical Sunnis could put fear into the government of Prime Minister Maliki.” The reasoning was that an alliance with Sunni extremists would be useful as it would “make [Maliki] worry that the Sunnis could actually win the civil war there”, and thus encourage him to cooperate with the US.<sup>11</sup> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Therefore, in order to remedy the Iranian influence spreading throughout the Maliki government, clandestine operations were adopted, the byproduct of which being the “bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”<sup>12</sup> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The Fake Arab Spring<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">With the eruption of the crisis in Syria and the subsequent lack of state authority that came with it, ISI was able to exploit the power vacuum and expand its grasp beyond Iraqi borders, changing its name to the “Islamic state in Iraq and al-Sham/the Levant” or ISIS/ISIL to reflect this greater reach.<sup>13</sup><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The Syrian crisis itself represents just one part in a much larger strategy by the Western powers aimed at manipulating the trajectory of the Arab Spring uprisings to ensure that they ultimately serve the regional agenda of the West. Having successfully thwarted the threats faced from the self-determination and pro-democracy uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen, similar but smaller protests in Syria and Libya were covertly redirected into a pretext for attacking uncooperative regimes which had historically proven antagonistic to Western interests.<sup>14<o:p></o:p></sup></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen all threatened to wrestle away the status-quo systems of control that the Western powers had exerted in these countries for almost half a century. This had ensured that foreign corporations maintained easy access to valuable markets and resources and that profits flowed primarily to Western investors.<sup>15</sup> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This framework of neoliberal reform began to be implemented during the 1970’s when Arab republics were struggling amidst the impacts of global economic downturns and began to institute policies largely directed from above by international finance institutions (IFIs) such as the IMF and World Bank. Given that the IFIs had been increasingly dominated by Western governments, they primarily represented the interests of the financial elite from wealthy Western countries. Therefore, the models they suggested were of rapid economic liberalization and denationalization which on the one hand gave Arab administrations immediate financial relief, yet at the same time, made their economies increasingly vulnerable to exploitation by Western multinational corporations and financial institutions.<sup>16</sup> As some have described, such policies had the effect of “massively restricting the ability of [these] governments to promote policies in their own national interests”, as they promoted rules which the UN explained “reflect an agenda that serves only to promote dominant corporate interests”, while at the same time rejecting the kind of policies that historically have been shown to achieve developmental success, such as import controls, taxes on foreign corporations, and state interference in the private sector.<sup>17</sup><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">These policies resulted in the emergence of a growing state-bourgeoisie which was able to enrich itself in a nepotistic fashion through its proximity to influential players within the state sector, allowing connected persons and groups primary access to newly privatized assets which they were able to monopolize and monetize.<sup>18</sup> These local elites served the function of clients of the Western powers which insured that the vast bulk of the country’s wealth would flow outwards and into the hands of foreign investors, resulting in a system of modern day neo-colonialism from which the United States and other previously colonial regimes were able to maintain effective control of the region and its resources.<sup>19<o:p></o:p></sup></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Apart from the liberalization of resources the prescriptions adopted from the IFIs included the removal of labor rights, the weakening of trade unions, increases in worker instability, tax advantages for foreign corporations, and the privatization of welfare systems.<sup>20</sup> This lead to massive increases in inequality, large concentration of wealth, and an erosion of the previous Cold War-era social contract which had traded economic security for political quiescence to authoritarian political structures.<sup>21</sup><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">As these policies advanced these states were increasingly unable to meet the basic needs of their citizens, and the compounding socio-economic pressures led to the rediscovery of long-suppressed notions of Arab dignity and self-determination which became personified within the Arab Spring protests. In this way, the Arab Spring was primarily a result of “people being drawn to the streets by the pressing economic grievances and uneven development that are the result of more than thirty years of neo-liberal policies.”<sup>22<o:p></o:p></sup></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Such movements were naturally a major threat to the established systems of power, primarily being centered around social justice and the rebuilding of domestic welfare states that threatened to unseat supplicant and compliant regimes with more assertive and indigenously representative administrations.<sup>23 </sup>Too much of a challenge for the Western powers to bear, externally-directed counterrevolutions were conducted to insure that such movements would be co-opted and redirected so that the governments which resulted would maintain as much of the previous order as possible, thereby insuring that the threatening ambitions for democracy and self-governance were effectively crushed.<sup>24<o:p></o:p></sup></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">However, for states which at the same time sat astride coveted natural resources and had long frustrated the ambitions of Western powers to gain greater access, local protests represented a golden opportunity to overturn non-compliant regimes under the pretext of Arab Spring humanitarian and democratic concerns.<sup>25</sup> The idea was, as Durham University’s Christopher Davidson explains, to give “ostensibly similar but evidently much smaller-scale protest movements in Libya and Syria the sort of outside helping hand they needed to become full-blown and state-threatening insurgencies.”<sup>26</sup>Thus, those Western states which had insured the failure of progressive Arab Spring movements throughout the region, “soon took the concurrent role of funding and weaponizing a fraudulent and more violent Western-sponsored version of the Arab Spring” in both Libya and Syria.<sup>27</sup> The cause of such bloody crisis therefore, being a result of these states having been “deliberately targeted in a calculated and sustained manner by external actors who saw a strategic use in supporting and boosting the ambitions of local oppositionists.”<sup>28</sup> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The “fake Arab Spring” and subsequent civil wars that resulted from these externally-directed and Western-backed insurgencies nevertheless were successful at insuring the failure of the protesters ambitions while as well providing the perfect environment for radicalized extremist organizations to expand their reach and control over territory.<sup>29</sup>&nbsp; Such a situation was further encouraged and facilitated by the Western powers who, as previously explained, saw such groups as strategically beneficial foot-soldiers which could be utilized and directed against their enemies.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Notes:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">1.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ezgi Basaran, “<a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/09/turkey-usa-iraq-syria-isis-fuller.html">Former CIA officer says US policies helped create IS</a>,” <i>Al Monitor</i>, 2 September 2014.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">2.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars: The Secret Struggle for the Middle East</i>, p. 366. Citing Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, “The Terrible Beauty of Wikileaks”, <i>Critical Muslim</i>, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, p. 215.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">3.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid.; Ezgi Basaran, “<a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/09/turkey-usa-iraq-syria-isis-fuller.html">Former CIA officer says US policies helped create IS</a>,” <i>Al Monitor</i>, 2 September 2014. Comments made by Graham Fuller.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">4.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, pp. 369-71.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">5.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., pp. 372-73. Citing Weiss, <i>ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror</i>, p. 49, 58-9, 70-78.; Roy Gutman, “<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/01/assad-henchman-here-s-how-we-built-isis.html">Assad Henchman: Here’s How We Built ISIS</a>,” <i>The Daily Beast</i>, 1 August 2016.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">6.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Nafeez Ahmed, “<a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/after-mosul-coming-break-iraq-and-end-middle-east-1887306183">After Mosul: The coming break-up of Iraq and end of the Middle East</a>,” <i>Middle East Eye</i>, 13 March 2017.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">7.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, pp. 375. Citing Martin Chulov, “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story">ISIS: The Inside Story</a>,” <i>The Guardian</i>,” 11 December 2014, and Bunzel, “From Paper State”, pp. 22-3.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">8.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Nafeez Ahmed, “<a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/after-mosul-coming-break-iraq-and-end-middle-east-1887306183">After Mosul</a>,” <i>Middle East Eye</i>, 13 March 2017.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">9.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid.; Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, pp. 375. Citing Bunzel, “From Paper State”, pp. 22-3.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">10.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Nafeez Ahmed, “<a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/after-mosul-coming-break-iraq-and-end-middle-east-1887306183">After Mosul</a>,” <i>Middle East Eye</i>, 13 March 2017.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">11.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 367. Citing Seymour M. Hersh, “<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection">The Redirection</a>,” <i>New Yorker</i>, 5 March 2007. Remarks made by Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">12.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Seymour M. Hersh, “<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection">The Redirection</a>,” <i>New Yorker</i>, 5 March 2007.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">13.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, pp. 380-81.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">14.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., pp. xi-xiii, 275, 276-347.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">15.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., pp. 177-78.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">16.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 195.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">17.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 200. Citing Peter Sutherland and the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, from M. Curtis, <i>Web of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World</i>, p. 213, 221. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">18.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 195, 197-98.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">19.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., pp. 197-201.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">20.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 196.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">21.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., pp. 194, 201-205. Citing Steven Heydemann, “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/12/04/arab-autocrats-are-not-going-back-to-the-future/">Arab autocrats are not going back to the future</a>,” <i>Washington Post</i>, 4 December 2014. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">22.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 201. Citing K. Bogaert, “Contextualizing the Arab Revolts: The Politics Behind Three Decades of Neo-liberalism in the Arab World”, <i>Middle East Critique</i>, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2013, pp. 214-15, 224.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">23.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., pp. 221-22. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">24.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., pp. 221-272.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">25.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->This was exacerbated further in Syria when Assad rejected a pipeline proposal by Qatar which would have connected their North Pars gas field, which is contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field and together account for the largest gas field in the world, to European energy markets through transitional hubs in Syria and Turkey. This would have greatly reduced Russia’s hold over Europe through their dependence on Russian gas exports, which now account for over a third of its energy demands. The proposal was rejected by Assad in order to “respect the interests of [his] Russian ally” while instead an Iranian sponsored project was put into motion, which would have linked their South Pars field to Europe thereby increasing Russian and Iranian influence and further frustrating the US ambition of unipolar geopolitical dominance. See <i>Eurostat</i>, “Energy production and imports”, data from July 2016.; <i>The Guardian</i>, “Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern”, 30 August 2013.; <i>Foreign Affairs</i>, “Putin’s Gas Attack: Is Russia Just in Syria for the Pipelines?”, 14 October, 2015.; <i>Middle East Eye</i>, “The US-Russia gas pipeline war in Syria could destabalise Putin”, 30 October 2015.; <i>EcoWatch</i>, “Syria: Another Pipeline War”, 25 February 2016.; For visual representation and listings of the largest gas fields, see <i>Wikipedia</i>, “South Pars / North Dome Gas-Condensate field”, and <i>Wikipedia</i>, “List of natural gas fields.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">26.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Christopher Davidson, <i>Shadow Wars</i>, p. 275.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">27.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 276.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">28.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., p. 275.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">29.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->“It was the war in Syria that destabilized Iraq when jihadi groups like ISIS, then called al-Qaeda in Iraq, found a new battlefield where they could fight and flourish”, Patrick Cockburn, <i>The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution</i>, p. 9.</span><o:p></o:p></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-81054841028596619962017-03-17T09:03:00.000-07:002017-03-17T09:03:06.300-07:00Contrasting Tales of Two Besieged Cities: Mosul & Aleppo<div style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 23.625px; word-wrap: break-word;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">During the Syrian army’s offensive to retake the eastern part of Aleppo from the insurgent opposition, the Western media portrayed the assault as if Russia and Syria were carrying out a campaign primarily aimed at killing and harming civilians. The humanitarian crisis dominated headlines while key facts, such as&nbsp;<span style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word;"><a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/08/selective-outrage-over-aleppo-bombing/" rel="noreferrer" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Al Qaeda’s domination of the opposition forces</a>&nbsp;</span>and the way in which the militants had brutally conquered the city’s civilians, were marginalized or not reported at all.<br /><br />A similar military offensive being carried out by the U.S. and its allies in the Iraqi city of Mosul reveals the hypocritical nature of Western news outlets, which portray their own countries’ actions as targeting only Islamic State terrorists and scrupulously avoiding harm to civilians.</span></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 23.625px; word-wrap: break-word;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 23.625px; word-wrap: break-word;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">There is no doubt that the siege in eastern Aleppo resulted in a humanitarian crisis for the civilian population trapped within the warzone. As the Washington Institute’s&nbsp;<a href="https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&amp;hl=en&amp;nv=1&amp;rurl=translate.google.com&amp;sl=auto&amp;tl=en&amp;u=http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/monde/2016/09/29/31002-20160929ARTFIG00111-alep-pourquoi-la-tragedie-humanitaire-ne-bouleverse-pas-la-donne-geopolitique.php%3Fredirect_premium&amp;usg=ALkJrhiU7NDtdEMZkVINnK4xaYEOjTEqEQ" rel="noreferrer" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Fabrice Balanche</a>&nbsp;described: “What the United Nations is describing [about] the humanitarian situation is correct: hospitals destroyed, people living in shelters, women and children trapped in the rubble, and so on.”<br /><br /></span></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 23.625px; word-wrap: break-word;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Yet in reality the destruction waged upon Aleppo was hardly different from what is now being done in Mosul as the U.S.-led coalition carries out a similar campaign of counterinsurgency and siege warfare.<br /><br /><a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/17/contrasting-tales-of-two-besieged-cities/">Continue reading the article here...</a></span></span></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-71127177450037504112017-03-16T15:55:00.000-07:002017-03-17T21:58:59.870-07:00Why ISIS is in Mosul<div class="MsoNormal"><b>Propaganda 101</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The US is currently engaged in a counterinsurgency campaign against ISIS in Mosul city, Iraq. US officials and western media however castigated Syria and Russia for a very similar campaign in eastern Aleppo which drove out the insurgents who were dominated by al-Qaeda and supported by CIA-backed rebels. As I explained <a href="http://undergroundreports.blogspot.com/2016/10/how-us-manipulates-humanitarianism-for.html">here</a>, the primary goal of this propaganda campaign was to stop the Syrian army from defeating the opposition and taking east Aleppo, and failing that, to brand Syria and Russia as war criminals for having defeated the US-backed opposition in a strategically important city. This also served to direct attention away from inconveniences to US imperialism, such as their reliance on an opposition dominated by al-Qaeda and the brutal way they had conquered and subjugated Aleppo’s civilians.&nbsp;</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">It as well redirected the narrative so that the only option discussed to reduce the civilian suffering was to stop the Syrian army’s offensive. Other, more practical options which would have disadvantaged western imperialism, like the evacuation of civilians or pressuring insurgent groups to stand down, were therefore conveniently not considered. Hidden from view was the fact that America had essentially supported al-Qaeda’s policy of preventing civilians from fleeing and using them as human shields. By arguing that the civilians should be “allowed to stay in their homes” in an active warzone, they effectively endorsed the human shield policy and exploited the civilian suffering as this was advantageous and helped them to oppose the defeat of their insurgents. If the civilians had been evacuated, as had been proposed by Russia, there would have been nothing stopping the Syrian army from besieging the militants and western officials would not have been able to cry foul at their tactics. This is all part of <a href="https://twitter.com/EHSANI22/status/767078780628242433">a long history</a> of the US and its allies opposing the separation of civilians from combatants as this would “be helping you [Syria and Russia] win.”&nbsp;</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The painting of Syria and Russia as the bad guys helps distract from the fact that this policy results in civilian deaths and exploits human suffering for political ends, and redirects the public into thinking primary responsibility for the suffering rests on their enemy’s shoulders, and not theirs.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Another means of accomplishing this is to depict similar actions carried out by the US and its allies in a positive light. So, when the US carries out siege warfare against ISIS in Mosul, using the same tactics as Syria and Russia used against al-Qaeda in Aleppo, they are not portrayed as war criminals but as liberators. In addition, to maintain the narrative that the US and its clients are the white knights fighting against evil in the world key historical inconveniences showing US policy to be the cause of the current predicament are erased down the memory-hole. These help to explain the current situation but put the US under a bad light, and betray the fact that the military actions carried out by Russia and Syria actually have much more basis in legitimacy than US actions do.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>How ISIS Came to Occupy Mosul</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><o:p><br /></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">It must be remembered that the reason the US is in Iraq to begin with was because of an unjustified act of quite deliberate aggression and neo-colonialism based on <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/91123/chomsky%3A_bush_%26_cheney_always_saw_iraq_as_a_sweetheart_oil_deal">completely false pretexts</a> in order to gain a military footing in a strategically important Middle Eastern nation and to exploit its substantial energy resources.&nbsp; That act of aggression and subsequent war fanned the flames of violence and instability which <a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/after-mosul-coming-break-iraq-and-end-middle-east-1887306183">created the conditions</a> from which extremists like the Islamic State and its precursors were able to form and prosper.&nbsp; In addition the US policy of arming and financing the “moderate” opposition in Syria did much the same and led to the empowerment <a href="https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military">of radical Islamist groups</a> from which the Islamic State itself was founded.&nbsp; The US then exploited the appearance of ISIS and utilized their formation as a means to attack their geopolitical enemies.&nbsp; For example, the US-coalition’s “anti-ISIS” airstrikes were conducted with the intent to push ISIS <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/obama-has-the-upper-hand-over-iran-and-russia-in-syria-and-iraq-and-without-major-ground-forces/">away from US-backed groups and allies</a> (like in Kobani and Iraqi Kurdistan) while <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24785155.html">neglecting to strike</a> them when battling the Syrian army or Hezbollah, as this would have help their enemies.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Similarly, the US took no action to stop the Islamic State from pushing into Iraq despite <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf">long-term</a><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-on-faulty-intelligence-1412033252">prior knowledge</a> in order to exploit its offensive as a means to pressure then Prime Minister al-Maliki to step down and install a more pliant ruler in his place.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Elijah J. Magnier, one of the most well informed Middle East journalists and the chief international correspondent for the Al Rai newspaper, <a href="https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/obama-has-the-upper-hand-over-iran-and-russia-in-syria-and-iraq-and-without-major-ground-forces/">explains</a>that “as long as the aim of ISIS’s military activity and expansion was to occupy land in Iraq, governed by pro-Iranian Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki (creating a weak state and much confusion in the Iraq-Iran relationship)” then “the ISIS presence in Iraq could be tolerated” by the US.&nbsp; This was further motivated by the fact that “in Iraq, al-Maliki’s main objective, following an Iranian request witnessed by the author, was to prevent the establishment of any US military base in the country.”&nbsp; The US therefore “did not just start taking a bunch of airstrikes all across Iraq as soon as ISIL came in,” Obama <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/opinion/president-obama-thomas-l-friedman-iraq-and-world-affairs.html?_r=1">explained</a>, because “that would have taken pressure off of al-Maliki.” The resulting pressure from Iraq's military defeats to ISIS finally unseated the unwanted Prime Minister, the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-mosul-will-u-s-iran-rivalry-undermine-iraq-1489656600?mod=fox_australian">Wall Street Journal</a> explaining: "After the rout of the Iraqi military that year, combined pressure from Washington and Tehran led the Iraqi parliament to oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, seen in both capitals as responsible for the debacle, and to replace him with current Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi."</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The motivation behind standing by as ISIS claimed large swaths of land in order to depose an unwanted leader raises further questions about the nature in which Mosul was overtaken.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">US intelligence <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf">had predicted</a> the fall of the city to an “Islamic state” of some kind a full two years before it occurred, if, as explained, “the situation continues to unravel” and support to the opposition continued, which was mainly empowering jihadists.&nbsp; Yet the Syrian policy did continue, and only intensified in the years after.&nbsp; Thus, when ISIS attacked the city the Iraqi security forces of no less than 350,000 battle-hardened men simply “disintegrated and fled” in the face of roughly 1,300 lightly-armed jihadis.&nbsp; One of these Iraqi soldiers explaining that on the morning of June 10<sup>th</sup> his commanding officer “told the men to stop shooting, hand over their rifles to the insurgents, take off their uniforms, and get out of the city.”<o:p></o:p><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , serif; vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><sup><br /></sup></div><div class="MsoNormal">The town was simply handed over to ISIS by the Iraqi commanders.&nbsp; Many were quick to explain this as evidence of incompetence or disillusionment towards the political leadership, yet it could just as well have been an adjunct to a strategy of pressuring a change in government.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Two months after the June 2014 fall of Mosul to ISIS, al-Maliki <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/maliki-steps-down-as-iraqi-prime-minister-2014814195927824856.html">stepped down</a> as Prime Minister.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This is the history behind the ISIS occupation of Mosul that does not get reported.&nbsp; It, of course, not being the only explanation for the groups takeover of the city. &nbsp;<a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/after-mosul-coming-break-iraq-and-end-middle-east-1887306183">Other factors</a>, such as the post-invasion governmental repression of the country’s Sunni minority, US counterinsurgency efforts targeting large segments of the population under false pretexts of being “al-Qaeda adherents”, and systematic torture and abuse by the US military all contributed to the deep sectarian tensions and legitimate grievances which have empowered extremism and helped solidify ISIS’ hold over the country.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Yet now, like the arsonist who comes to extinguish the fire, the US is engaged in another bloody military operation that is wreaking havoc on a civilian population in order to eradicate the original problem of the Islamic State occupying Mosul city, a situation which their own policies helped to create.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">On the other hand, Syria is fighting against a foreign-backed insurgency dominated by extremists like al-Qaeda, which is being supported by the world’s leading superpower and other powerful allies.&nbsp; Russia, apart from its other crimes, is operating in Syria in full accordance with international law and is assisting an ally who is being attacked by foreign powers.&nbsp; The US-led coalitions actions against the Islamic State in Syria <a href="https://www.rt.com/op-edge/323396-unsc-isis-syria-us/">are illegal</a> and in violation of international law and various UN resolutions and in places like Iraq have no base in legitimacy, especially given the <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html">history</a>of <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4509231/general-dempsey-acknowledges-us-arab-allies-funding-isis">coalition members'</a> <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html">support</a>for the group in the first place.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">Syria, therefore, has a much stronger argument for the use of military force within their territory.&nbsp; The fact that the media continually fail to mention this, is also quite telling.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Notes:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->1.)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</span>Patrick Cockburn, The Rise of the Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution, pg.15.</div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2975096617689957092.post-364980485780568202016-10-06T09:56:00.003-07:002017-02-06T19:57:49.896-08:00How the US Manipulates Humanitarianism for Imperialism #Aleppo<div class="MsoNormal">The United States is manipulating humanitarian concern in an effort to protect its proxy militias and its imperial regime-change project in Syria.&nbsp; The media and intellectual classes are dutifully falling in line, promoting a narrative of military aggression under the cover of “protecting civilians.”&nbsp; These same “responsibility to protect” arguments led to the invasions of Iraq and Libya, exponentially increasing the massacres, chaos, and proliferation of violent extremism within those countries.&nbsp; They are hypocritical, designed to further interests of conquest and domination, and will lead to more death and destruction in Syria as well.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The United States has no stake in the wellbeing of Syrian civilians, despite their condemnations of Russia’s offensive in Aleppo.&nbsp; This is clearly shown in the fact that the people they are supporting are guilty of the same crimes they accuse Russia and Syria of: indiscriminate attacks, <a href="http://www.mintpressnews.com/journey-to-aleppo-exposing-the-truth-buried-under-nato-propaganda/220563/">targeting of civilians</a>, destruction of <a href="https://twitter.com/MuradGazdiev/status/783323040889397248">schools</a>, <a href="https://www.sott.net/article/325238-Western-corporate-media-disappears-over-1-5-million-Syrians-and-4000-doctors">hospitals</a>, etc.&nbsp; Furthermore, the offensive in Aleppo is really no different from what the US did in Manbij, where they are said to have incorporated a “<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-against-isis-us-led-coalition-accused-of-killing-civilians-using-scorched-earth-policy-in-syria-a7174736.html">scorched earth policy</a>” while they liberated the city from ISIS, whereby the civilian population was treated “as if they were terrorists or ISIS supporters.”&nbsp; Arguably their conduct was even worse, as they there earned the distinction of launching <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/20/us-airstrike-allegedly-kills-56-civilians-in-northern-syria">the deadliest single airstrike on civilians out of the entire 5-year conflict</a>, massacring at least 73 where no ISIS fighters were present.&nbsp; The Manbij operation elicited no moral outcry from the media and punditry, understandably since these were “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499">unworthy victims</a>” given that they were <i>our </i>victims and not those of our enemies.&nbsp; The same can be said about the US operations in Kobani and Fallujah, whereby the entire towns were essentially reduced to rubble without any uproar.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Saudi Arabia as well has no concern for Syrian civilians, as they have been ruthlessly besieging and bombing Yemen, with the support and help of the United States, for two years without any concern for civilian lives.&nbsp; Their assault has led to a humanitarian situation even more dire than in Syria, leaving <a href="http://www.unocha.org/yemen/crisis-overview">at least 19 million</a> in need of humanitarian assistance; in Syria it is estimated that a total of <a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/07/259622.htm">18 million</a> are in need of aid.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Turkey as well is not concerned, as is evidenced by their conduct towards their Kurdish population, yet the recent quiet by Erdogan over the fate of Aleppo is indicative of <a href="https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&amp;hl=en&amp;nv=1&amp;rurl=translate.google.com&amp;sl=auto&amp;tl=en&amp;u=http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/monde/2016/09/29/31002-20160929ARTFIG00111-alep-pourquoi-la-tragedie-humanitaire-ne-bouleverse-pas-la-donne-geopolitique.php%3Fredirect_premium&amp;usg=ALkJrhiU7NDtdEMZkVINnK4xaYEOjTEqEQ">an understanding</a> reached between him with President Putin, whereby Turkey establishes a presence in northern Syria and blocks the advance of the Kurds, and in return limits its support to the rebels and the insurgents in Aleppo.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The real reason the US is decrying the Russian operation is the fact that they are staring aghast at the near-term possibility that their proxy insurgency in Aleppo will be defeated.&nbsp; Not only will this mark the decisive turning point in the war, the rebels all-but being fully overcome with the Syrian government in control of all the populated city centers except Idlib, but others <a href="http://atimes.com/2016/10/battle-of-aleppo-end-of-history-in-middle-east/">have argued</a> that it could as well mark the end of US hegemony over the entire Middle Eastern region in general.&nbsp; In other words, the US is trying to turn global public opinion against the Russian effort in an attempt to halt the advance and protect their rebel proxies trapped inside Aleppo.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">So, who are these rebels?&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In short, they are an array of US-supported groups in alliance with and dominated by al-Qaeda.&nbsp;<br /><br />During the past ceasefire agreement these rebels <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/syria-rebels-draw-closer-to-al-qaeda-linked-group-1475197943?mg=id-wsj">refused to break ties with al-Qaeda</a> and instead reasserted their commitment to their alliances with the group.&nbsp; The UN’s special envoy for Syria recently explained that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx3XbFYqOoo&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=27m43s">over half of the fighters in eastern Aleppo are al-Nusra</a> (al-Qaeda’s Syria affiliate), while according to the US Department of Defense, it is “<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/defense-department-nusra-aleppo-putin-assad-2016-4">primarily Nusra who holds Aleppo</a>.”&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Expert analysis concurs, as <a href="https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&amp;hl=en&amp;nv=1&amp;rurl=translate.google.com&amp;sl=auto&amp;tl=en&amp;u=http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/monde/2016/09/29/31002-20160929ARTFIG00111-alep-pourquoi-la-tragedie-humanitaire-ne-bouleverse-pas-la-donne-geopolitique.php%3Fredirect_premium&amp;usg=ALkJrhiU7NDtdEMZkVINnK4xaYEOjTEqEQ">Fabrice Balanche</a> of the Washington Institute details how these rebel alliances indicate “that the al-Nusra Front dominates more different rebel factions, including those considered ‘moderate.’”&nbsp; He explains that al-Qaeda’s “grip on East Aleppo has only increased since the spring of 2016.” <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">It is these fighters, al-Qaeda and their affiliates, that the US is trying to protect from the Russians, and as well other US intelligence operatives that are likely embedded with them.&nbsp; The narrative that Russia is committing a humanitarian catastrophe is intended to hide this fact, as well as to shift the blame for the suffering in Aleppo off of the US’ shoulders.&nbsp; Yet it was the US support to the rebels that is primarily responsible for the suffering.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">To illustrate this, the people of eastern Aleppo <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/21/syrian-rebels-aleppo-local-hostility">never supported the rebels</a> nor welcomed them.&nbsp; The rebels nonetheless “<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-aleppo-idUSBRE86S06T20120729">brought the revolution to them</a>” and conquered the people against their will all the same.&nbsp; Of the few reporters who actually went to the city, they describe how Aleppo has been <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-public-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html">overrun by violent militants</a> through a wave of repression, and that the people only “saw glimmers of hope” as the Syrian army was driving them from the area.&nbsp; The people decried this “<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-rebels-idUSBRE9070VV20130109">malicious revolution</a>” and characterized the rebel’s rule as a “scourge of terrorism.”&nbsp; This, of course, was of no concern to the US at the time, who now proclaims to be the “protectors” of the civilians in Aleppo.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Around <a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkey-fears-influx-600000-refugees-aleppo-bombing-1375080205">200-600,000</a>of the original population fled and relocated in the government-held western part of the city.&nbsp; Of the civilians who remain, they are <a href="https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&amp;hl=en&amp;nv=1&amp;rurl=translate.google.com&amp;sl=auto&amp;tl=en&amp;u=http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/monde/2016/09/29/31002-20160929ARTFIG00111-alep-pourquoi-la-tragedie-humanitaire-ne-bouleverse-pas-la-donne-geopolitique.php%3Fredirect_premium&amp;usg=ALkJrhiU7NDtdEMZkVINnK4xaYEOjTEqEQ">primarily the families of the fighters</a>, who themselves are paid to stay and fight.&nbsp; The official numbers for those remaining are 200,000, yet the actual number is likely much lower, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/worst-place-in-world-aleppo-ruins-four-years-syria-war">around 40-50,000</a>.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Nonetheless, the remaining civilians who were trapped within this warzone were prevented from leaving. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">During the first ceasefire, humanitarian corridors were opened and the civilians were encouraged by the Syrian army to leave, yet <a href="http://www.france24.com/en/20160729-syria-rebels-prevent-civilians-leaving-aleppo-monitor?ref=tw_i">the rebels stopped them</a>, with reports saying they went as far as <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/353937-russia-humanitarian-aid-aleppo/">to shoot at those who tried</a>.&nbsp; The attempt to evacuate the civilians <a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/07/us-rebuke-russia-plan-aleppo-syria-demand-surrender.html">was condemned by the US</a>, who argued that the innocent people “should be able to stay in their homes.”&nbsp; The radical groups were using the civilian population as human shields in order to protect themselves, and the US was supporting it. &nbsp;Further corroborating this is the special UN envoy Steffan de Mistura, who quotes reports indicating that the rebels have been utilizing “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx3XbFYqOoo&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=27m43s">intentional placement of firing positions close to social infrastructure, aside and inside civilian quarters</a>.” This is because it has always been the policy of the Syrian government to separate civilians from insurgents, as it is simply much more militarily effective to fight against an enemy that is not ensconced within a civilian population.&nbsp; Likewise, it has always been US and rebel policy to prevent this separation.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">According to a knowledgeable individual with contacts with high level Syrian officials, the US and EU <a href="https://storify.com/MoonofA/civilians-in-war-on-syrian">always rejected the Syrian governments proposals</a> to separate civilians from the fighters, as they explained, “<a href="https://twitter.com/EHSANI22/status/767085842556940288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">because doing so will be helping you win</a>.”&nbsp; This makes sense, given that if all of the civilians from eastern Aleppo were evacuated there would then be nothing stopping the Syrian army from crushing the remaining fighters, and there as well would be no international outcry over them doing so.&nbsp; The source <a href="https://storify.com/MoonofA/civilians-in-war-on-syrian">explains</a>:&nbsp;“Syria’s war is an urban war theater.&nbsp; [The] only way for insurgents to compete is to use residential areas to hide and operate out of.&nbsp; This is in direct contrast to [the] Syrian army who would like to fight a theater totally void of civilians.”</div><div class="MsoNormal">&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">Those claiming to be protecting Aleppo’s civilians from the Russian and Syrian onslaught are in actuality using them as a means to protect their own success on the battlefield.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Given this, the strategy of the Syrian government has been <a href="https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&amp;hl=en&amp;nv=1&amp;rurl=translate.google.com&amp;sl=auto&amp;tl=en&amp;u=http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/monde/2016/09/29/31002-20160929ARTFIG00111-alep-pourquoi-la-tragedie-humanitaire-ne-bouleverse-pas-la-donne-geopolitique.php%3Fredirect_premium&amp;usg=ALkJrhiU7NDtdEMZkVINnK4xaYEOjTEqEQ">to bomb sporadically</a> in order to scare the civilians and force them to flee from areas controlled by the militants.&nbsp; This is also why the Syrian army just recently <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/syria-military-says-reduce-bombardment-aleppo-rebels-162909493.html">halted their advance</a> in order to allow civilians to evacuate; they wanted the civilians out of the picture so they could militarily defeat the rebels more quickly and easily. &nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">If one actually were concerned about saving the civilians in eastern Aleppo it is pretty straight forward that one would try to evacuate the civilians from the area, and that the backers of the rebel groups would put pressure on them to allow this to happen.&nbsp; From there it would follow that all sides abide by the UN Security Council resolutions of which they agreed to, which call for <a href="http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11520.doc.htm">the suppression of financing, fighters, and support</a> to al-Qaeda, for the suppression of al-Qaeda “<a href="http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12171.doc.htm">and all other entities associated</a>” with them, and “to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Syria,” of which Aleppo is one of the largest.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately, it is only Syria and Russia who are following through on these commitments, while the US and its allies are consciously blocking them.&nbsp; The media and intellectual opinion are as well falling in line, <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/05/new-group-think-for-war-with-syriarussia/">obscuring from the narrative</a> all of these inconvenient truths that do not support the interests of the policy planners in Washington.&nbsp; In this way, the media are shown to be completely subservient to state power, drumming up support for another aggressive war based on falsities and half-truths in the exact same way that led to the continuing catastrophes in Libya and Iraq.&nbsp; When the US was driving ISIS from Manbij, just as Syria is now driving al-Qaeda from Aleppo, killing hundreds of civilians at a time, there was not so much as a debate about it, much less an international outcry.&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Yet now there are countless calling to “save” Syrians by bombing them and flooding the warzone with more weapons and fighters, ironically using “humanitarian” concern to call for policies that will lead to even more death and misery.&nbsp; The rebels are <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-syria-talks-stall-a-hunt-for-alternatives-1461794024">dominated by jihadi extremists</a>, and any further support to them will further strengthen the radicals engaged in a project of ethnic cleansing, conquest, and reactionary theocratic governance. &nbsp;Bombing would only help to further descend Syria into chaos and death, just as it did in Iraq and Libya.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal">This is an international proxy war and <a href="https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&amp;hl=en&amp;nv=1&amp;rurl=translate.google.com&amp;sl=auto&amp;tl=en&amp;u=http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/monde/2016/09/29/31002-20160929ARTFIG00111-alep-pourquoi-la-tragedie-humanitaire-ne-bouleverse-pas-la-donne-geopolitique.php%3Fredirect_premium&amp;usg=ALkJrhiU7NDtdEMZkVINnK4xaYEOjTEqEQ">humanitarian concerns are being manipulated unscrupulously</a> in support of interests having nothing to do with concern for innocent lives.&nbsp; Don’t fall for this faux humanitarianism from which more war, imperialism, and thus more death and destruction will result. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div>Steven Chovanechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12502000985036164052noreply@blogger.com4